1999-06-223913SENATE589301999-06-22The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills5893r636589312:31:005893Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Margetts moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to reconsider the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 .I hope the debate will not necessarily take too long. The motion is in relation to the confusion that occurred during the debate last night. Most of the attention yesterday was in relation to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , but the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 , a bill relating to the services of Telstra, was also in there. On the night, there was a lot of confusion about the amendments. I asked about the running sheet and about continuing without knowing exactly the relevance of the particular amendments we were voting on.I believe that the will of the Senate was not necessarily done last night because, on reflection, there was at least one amendment which indicated that the vote would have gone another way if it had not been put through in such a rushed process. Under standing order 104, I simply ask that government amendments Nos 5 and 39 from the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 be recommitted. The bill has not yet gone to the House of Representatives. Although we deal with lots of issues here—and there are many issues which other people believe are more important—this is one of those areas where we would like to think that Senate processes had been per formed correctly and that the proper outcome had come from the will of the Senate.This is one of those occasions when, if more of us had had the information in front of us, we may well have called a division. A division was not called and I believe that had it been called it would have gone in a different direction than was recorded last night.I ask for support on this issue. As I said, there are lots of important issues, and I would like to think that the whole process is such that we will not end up with an outcome which contradicts the will of the Senate. It may well be that decisions are being made which mean that votes are with the government but, if it is the case that the will of the Senate has not been abided by, I think it deserves recommittal.12:33:005893Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The government will not agree to the suspension. With all respect to Senator Margetts, if she were serious about this matter she would have given us notice of it this morning so that it could be properly investigated. To be told that this was to be moved as we came into the chamber for prayers this afternoon is not a sign that that this is an issue of serious moment. I can only presume that it is another one of the Greens' stunts—ungracious for me to say—to try to attract attention to their cause, which in this instance is a lost cause. In such circumstance, I see no reason why the suspension should be granted and the matters recommitted. The government will therefore vote accordingly.12:34:005893Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have heard the contribution of Senator Margetts and Senator Hill's response. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would know, the approach that the opposition has consistently taken on these sorts of matters is to ensure that, where there has been misadventure, the will of the Senate is reflected in votes on the floor of the chamber. We adopt that principle because in a chamber like this—where no party has a majority and where many votes are close—any misadventure can lead to a situation where the will of the Senate is not reflected in voting.I indicate that I am inclined to support the suspension motion on the evidence available. The problem I have with the suspension motion before the chair is this: Senator Margetts has indicated that, as far as she is concerned, she did not vote as she would have intended to because of a series of consequences. I find that difficult to understand in one sense because you will recall that, in relation to the votes on this particular matter, Senator Ray did call this issue to the attention of all the Senate, and he did ask that standing order 195 be applied in this circumstance. The opposition was worried about the confusion that was on the faces of certain senators—particularly the Democrat senators, who nowadays look to the government for guidance, as you know, Senator Margetts, in how they vote.Senator Margetts, I accept what you say, that you inadvertently did not vote in support of this motion. The opposition voted no against government amendments Nos 5 and 39. We did not call a division because there were no other voices in voting no to government amendments Nos 5 and 39. Senator Margetts, you have indicated clearly—and I appreciate that—that you would have voted that way if there had been, in your view, more clarity at the time. I think the case would need to be made that not only you but other senators were in that situation. I will listen to what Senator Harradine, who is in the chamber, might say and I would be interested to hear what the view of the representative of the Australian Democrats might be. There would need to be a substantial number of other senators who found themselves in a similar situation to yourself, Senator Margetts, for the case for recommittal to be made.I think that is as objective an analysis that I can make on this situation, and that is why I say that I am minded to vote for the suspension to allow briefly for that case to be made. If it is made and it is clear that there would have been a different outcome, then I think it is proper, in accordance with the principles you would know that I have consistently espoused in this chamber—that is, that the will of the Senate be reflected in votes on the floor of the chamber—that the opposition support the recommittal. It is not enough to say that you, Senator Margetts, with the opposition voting in a different way would mean that the outcome would be different. The opposition commands 28 votes in this chamber; you are another one, Senator Margetts, but it is not enough. That is the only way I can approach this situation. That is why I indicate to the Senate that the opposition would support a suspension—and we do not want a long drawn out debate on this; I can assure you—if by the end of the suspension debate that issue of the will of the Senate is not clear. But if it is clear that the will of the Senate would not be any different if the amendments are recommitted, then the opposition will not support an approach that there be a recommittal, and I do not think there is any other reasonable way that the opposition can approach this issue.12:39:005894Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I just indicate briefly that the Democrats are of a mind to support Senator Margetts's call for a suspension of standing orders on this issue, despite Senator Faulkner's assertion that the Democrats now look to the government before we decide what we are doing. Once again, the hollowness of that sort of rhetoric is demonstrated by the fact that we will be supporting Senator Margetts on this issue, despite the very cogently argued position put by Senator Hill. I could say that I was swayed by the arguments of Senator Faulkner but, again, I think that would sound fairly fatuous, given the quality of them.Senator Margetts has outlined the confusion, and all of us who were here last night would be aware of it, that specifically applied to the amendments that she has drawn attention to. In that context, I think it is important that the vote of the Senate recorded in the Hansard clearly reflects the position of all senators in this place. Whether we end up with a different outcome or not is something that we will find out if we get the chance to recommit the amendments to a vote. We think it is important that the position of the various parties on that vote is on the public record. It is clearly indicated that there was some confusion amongst some senators about what the vote was to be, and that is the purpose of Senator Margetts's aims in trying to get this recommitted. We support her in her aim.12:42:005895Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Faulkner is right in that a recommittal is warranted if in the course of the debate it appears as though a vote has gone the wrong way. What happened last night with the guillotine process is that votes were put very quickly. Senator Faulkner and other senators might remember that we could not get a running sheet, and did not have a running sheet, at the time. That made it more difficult.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—The Chairman pointed out that a running sheet had been made available in May.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Deputy Leader of the Government indicates that a running sheet had been distributed in May. I do not think I am too different from other senators in that I do not have the papers from May on my desk at the moment. I asked for them at the pertinent time, Mr Acting Deputy President, and that is what is important.Let me come to the point here: these were government amendments so a clear majority of the Senate was needed to succeed. It was called on the votes but there was not a division. Senator Margetts is asking for a division. The outcome of that division, if Labor, the Democrats and the Greens are on one side and the government is on the other side, depends on the Independents and how they are going to vote.I note that Senator Colston is not here, but I have a feeling that he may not vote with the government on this issue. I think therefore that it ought to be tested because, if that is the case, the government would not have succeeded with its amendments. That is the message I get. It is therefore up to us to test that. I am acting on information here which I think is reliable and I think, therefore, it ought to be tested because I believe that the vote has gone the wrong way and would not have succeeded had there been—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Would you have voted against the amendment, though?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes. I support Senator Margetts, and I believe that the matter ought to be recommitted and tested in a vote.12:44:005895Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—I should make a few comments on behalf of the opposition in respect of this matter—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I thought Senator Faulkner did that.2L6Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP—Whatever—considering that I had running of it in the chamber last evening. My recollection of events is that, as the telephone sex amendment was discussed, the opposition moved an amendment. It indicated that it treated it seriously and it wanted the government to treat it in such a fashion. The government indicated it was going to oppose our amendment. Consequent upon that, I stood and advised that the position of the Labor Party had not changed: because of the actions in respect of the guillotine and the fact that our amendment had not been treated seriously, we would vote against the amendment when it was put. Subsequent to that, Senator Ray rose in his place and, on two occasions, asked the Chairman to read out the amendment before us, and the Chairman read the preamble to the amendment. So there was no confusion or misunderstanding on our part that we were discussing, and later voting on, the telephone sex amendment. I accept that Senator Margetts and Senator Brown might have been confused and might not have had access to the running sheet on the bill at the appropriate time. As far as I was concerned, we had the running sheet all evening and the Labor Party was aware of the context of the particular amendment that was being put.Firstly, taking the lead from Senator Faulkner, it is clear to us that if some or all minor party senators were not aware of what was going on, it would be appropriate for Senator Allison, who has had carriage of telecommunications matters, to rise in this place and advise the chamber that she was confused and did not understand the particular amendment that was being put. Secondly, Senator Colston, as we are all aware, was the swing vote in this. We had advised Senator Harradine that we were going to oppose the amendment. Senator Harradine went to the government side, as did Senator Colston, when the motion was put by the Chairman. It was called on the voices. Only opposition senators voted no. Government senators voted yes, and there was no objection, no movement and no shifting from Senator Harradine or Senator Colston.We looked down to the end of the chamber and there was no movement by the Democrats or other minor party senators. On that basis, we understood the will of the chamber to be as called by Senator West, the Chairman. In that context, we would seek a full explanation from Senator Allison. We would also seek a full explanation from Senator Colston—because we looked at him, he did not move or indicate opposition in any way, and we think it appropriate for him also to advise the chamber as to whether his position was misrepresented.12:48:005896Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I think `confusion' was a good word to use for the passage of these amendments. I indicated in various speeches, both last night and when we previously dealt with this bill, that we would oppose those amendments. So I think the Labor Party was quite clear about it. I cannot recall whether I actually heard the Labor Party say they were opposed to these amendments, and I am quite happy to say that we would like to see a recommittal of the vote because of that general state of confusion.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That was truly pathetic.12:49:005896Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate said. That was a pathetic attempt, Senator Allison, to be quite frank. I draw your attention to page 5772 of yesterday's Hansard , which deals with this question. The Chairman said:The question is that government amendments Nos 5 and 39 on sheet ER229 be agreed to.Then Senator Mark Bishop got up and made a few comments, and he made it perfectly clear that the matter was about phone sex, and, in a minute or two, he outlined it succinctly. If anybody was listening, they would have heard the proposition being put forward in support of the amendments. Then the Chairman said:The question is that government amendments Nos 5 and 39 be agreed to.Senator Robert Ray got up and asked:Under standing order 195 could the chair read out the amendments?The Chairman read the amendments:Government amendment 5: . . .. Telstra is subject to price control arrangements . . . . This act regulates telephone sex services.Government amendment 39: . . . Part 9A—Telephone sex services—and so on. For anybody who was listening or following the debate at all, there was no confusion at all; none whatsoever. If you were listening—you did not have to have the sheet before you—you would have known what it was all about.The remaining stages went through. Senator Brown indicated that he did not understand a response from the chair about Senator Ray's request for the amendments to be completely read out. Then the question was put and resolved in the affirmative. These were the government amendments. Then a further vote took place, and was resolved in the negative, in respect of Democrat amendments Nos 2 and 7. So it was perfectly clear to everybody what the situation was, if they had ears to hear—particularly as Senator Mark Bishop got up and explained why the opposition was not supporting government amendments Nos 5 to 39.I do not propose, therefore, to support the suspension of standing orders, and I think that we ought to get on with what I am down here for, which is the biodiversity bill.12:52:005896Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I am not going to go into all the ins and outs of this. Normally if there is a claim of inadvertence in the Senate, the matter goes to another vote and there is not a lot of analysis as to why a particular person has missed a vote or otherwise. So I think most of the debate today is irrelevant from that point of view. If the people in the chamber were too dopey to understand what was before the chair, that is bad luck. It was unfortunate—I have to say to Senator Harradine and others—that, having asked for an explanation as to what was before the chair, we had half of it read out and the guillotine then cut off the other half of it.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—But the half made it abundantly clear what it was about.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—To most people, Senator—to people of your eminent perception who grasp issues so quickly. Of course it became clear to you.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Even people like yourself at the opposite end of the spectrum.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I would not have asked for it to be read out if I had not actually grasped what was before the chair because I was on other duties at the time.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—The cricket had finished.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—That is right, but you are the expert on phone sex, not me. I have always left those areas for you to pursue. I heard Senator Hill's contribution, and I think it was unwise. I think it would have been better to cut and run on this issue, put it to a vote—which I assume it probably went; I do not know—and get it over and done with. If all the debate about recommittal goes to the circumstances—LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—But it is not a fair dinkum claim. You know that.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We do not know that. You have asked me to put myself in the minds of the Democrats. Apart from Senator Ian Campbell, no-one else in this room other than the Democrats could do that. It is very difficult.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I tried that.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Yes, you tried and were rejected—the senator that the John West Democrats rejected. But to be serious about it, are we actually going to debate the circumstances every time as to why Senator Alston missed four divisions? We did not want to know the details of why he missed four divisions and why the whip had to constantly go around to his office and berate him and explain that when the bells ring you come down to the chamber. We did not want all that; we wanted the will of the Senate reflected, and it would have been quicker—we would have been on to the next bills now—if we had just done that.I have no idea where Senator Colston is voting on this. I think I have probably tagged where everyone else in the chamber is voting. Why not just put it to the vote and get it over and done with. Then the next time there is inadvertence by the government, you will get the same cooperation from us and the rest of the parties to recommit. But if in fact you knock it off this time, maybe it will be a bit harder next time to get that cooperation. Question put: That the motion (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.12:59:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)33Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.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.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tierney, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Carr, K. Ferris, J.Hutchins, S. Gibson, B. F.Lees, M. H. Troeth, J.Murray, A. Tambling, G. E. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Business589858985898Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to move a motion to enable government business orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 to be taken together for their remaining stages.Leave not granted.Bills5898s1825898Debate resumed from 12 November 1998 on motion by Senator Kemp:That this bill be now read a second time.13:04:005898Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I start off by saying that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] has been brought into the chamber before the chamber is ready to debate it. It has been brought in here before we have seen the amendments the government is going to move to this legislation. It has been brought in here before we have had a chance to scrutinise the deal that has been done between the government and the Australian Democrats on this extremely important piece of legislation. This is a bill that can wait. If a deal has been done with the Democrats, let that deal become subject to public scrutiny. If a deal has been done, let all the stakeholders involved have access to the finetuning of it so that we can see what will be passed in this parliament.This legislation should not be debated before we have a chance to see the government's amendments and before we have a chance to draft amendments to the government's amendments. We have a situation where right at this moment the Australian Democrats are announcing the structure or the formality of a deal with the government—the final details of it or the start of it, one or the other; we do not even know that. But what we do know is that, for a party that has for a long time protested as being a green party, the Democrats have become gangrene. They have lost their direction. They are going to lose their constituency, and they are going to lose it for good reason. This is a bill that is not just about legislative efficiency. This is not a debate about reducing administrative complexity and duplication. It is not a debate about clarifying the responsibilities of each level of government for the protection of the environment. This debate is about the Howard government's determination to revisit history and to remake it. This debate is about this government's ideologically driven obsession to restage battles long lost by the forces of conservatism in this country, to reset the rules of engagement and thus to erase from the record the victories won by environmentalists for some 30 years. The Australian Democrats, sad to say, are compliant partners in this course.The government seeks to remove the Commonwealth as an active combatant on the side of environmental and biodiversity protection. They would have this nation turn its back on international undertakings and responsibilities by radically diluting the Commonwealth's power. No matter how you try to amend this legislation, as the Democrats probably now will protest they have done, there are at least 17, if not more, escape clauses through which the Commonwealth minister and the Commonwealth government can flick back Commonwealth responsibilities to the states.The government has presented this bill as the only comprehensive and fundamental attempt to reform environmental responsi bilities in the history of our federation. Unfortunately, however, although this bill may be the largest environment bill introduced into this parliament, neither is it comprehensive in coverage nor does it achieve fundamental reform of Commonwealth environmental laws. The fact is that in many ways this bill returns environmental law in Australia to the pre-1970s situation, when environmental concerns were the sole province of the states. The bill significantly limits the scope for Commonwealth activity on environmental issues. Even within that limited scope, the bill provides for an extremely broad range of exemptions from its standard procedures on the so-called matters of national environmental significance. Ministerial discretion in this legislation is uniformly unfettered by any semblance of clear environmental standards. Public participation in critical environmental decisions is negligible.Unsurprisingly, this bill and its companion consequential bill engage in another mean-spirited attack on the hard-won rights of indigenous people in this country. This bill contains amendments which have taken no account of the principles of joint management and show no respect for the expertise of indigenous communities in caring for their environment and for their attachment to it. This is a bill which has met with universal opposition from stakeholders, no matter where they come from in the political spectrum.Let us look at the history that has been overturned by this legislation, and let us look at the history that the Australian Democrats are compliant in overturning. National and international awareness of the importance of protecting the environment has blossomed over the last 40 to 50 years. International awareness of the environment is a significant example of the new social movements of the late 20th century. This is a movement driven by local communities' concern about the effects of unchecked pollution, industrialisation and unsustainable resource use.Australia has been no exception to this international phenomenon. All of the great environmental battles fought in Australia have had strong community support and polling still consistently shows environmental issues high on the list of community concerns. This consciousness has emerged in parallel with such developments as international human rights institutions and the recognition of the right of colonised people to self-determination.The 1972 declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment marked the beginning of a serious attempt by the world community to weld world environmental concerns to economic and social issues. As with the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the declaration in 1972 on the environment is an aspirational statement concerned with the potentially catastrophic effects of unchecked industrial development and resource use on the quality of life of all people and the conservation of nature and ecosystems. During the past three decades these aspirational statements have been fleshed out in a range of specific international environmental treaties relating to environmental damage, the marine environment, protection of the atmosphere, nuclear risks and the conservation of nature and other living things.In the early 1970s the ALP introduced the first ever national approach to environmental regulation with the introduction of the EPIP Act. This legislation was aimed at ensuring that significant environmental matters are considered in relation to actions, proposals and decisions taken by the federal government and its agencies. It was through this national approach to environmental legislation that we conducted an inquiry into sand mining on Fraser Island in Queensland. That inquiry was able to proceed and the recommendations of that inquiry convinced the Fraser government to use other Commonwealth powers—those ad hoc powers that the current minister refers to—to stop sand mining on the island.We have had other Commonwealth initiatives on the environment which have also been critical to saving what are now considered inviolable national environmental icons. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975, again passed by the Labor government, ensured that invaluable areas such as Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta became national parks under national Commonwealth control. Fol lowing the 1983 election, fought partially on the question of the construction of the Gordon below Franklin dam, the Hawke government introduced the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. That act was used later in that decade to stop the logging of the Queensland wet tropics, including the Daintree forest, by the Queensland National Party.We had then a mentality in the states which is probably still the same now, a mentality best reflected by the Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, whose attitude was, `You can do so much with a bulldozer.' You can do so much with a bulldozer unless you have a Commonwealth government that is responsible and acting responsibly. This government is not. We must remember that both these Commonwealth interventions were fought tooth and nail by conservative state governments and also by the then federal opposition under the guise of protecting state rights. The Commonwealth government, under Labor, invoked the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 to stop the logging of the Lemonthyme forests in Tasmania—forests identified for world heritage listing. The Commonwealth similarly intervened to stop the proposal to mine the ecologically and culturally unique Coronation Hill site in Kakadu.The telling point about all this is that you need a national approach to environmental security. All these icons would have been destroyed had their future been allowed to be determined by state governments. From a constitutional perspective, the legal struggles initiated by the states against the Commonwealth's legitimate use of power to achieve such environmental protection has resulted in a series of High Court decisions finding that the Commonwealth has near to plenary constitutional power to enact laws to protect the environment. Nothing in this bill protects that constitutional power. This government has drafted a bill that provides the potential to hand over environmental control to the states and territories. We have come full circle. This time, however, we are completing that circle without the Australian Democrats on board.I will now move to the details of this legislation. This bill purports to carve up the respective responsibilities of the Common wealth and the states. They use a definition of so-called matters of national environmental significance. Even this small list of matters is in some senses not sufficiently protected by Commonwealth action because even in these areas Commonwealth control can cascade directly to state and territory control. There are narrow concepts of the operation of `national' matters within the bill. For instance, there are only six specific matters of national environmental significance and one catch-all provision through regulation. Even with respect to those matters there can be a cascading of Commonwealth powers.The policy justification for these six matters is the COAG agreement, but let us remember that the COAG agreement identified some 30 matters of national environmental significance. In this legislation we have only six and the most important matters relating to climate change, greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, air quality, soil salinity, desertification, water allocation, land degradation, land clearing and so on have all been left to languish either with the states or in that never-never land between Commonwealth and state responsibilities. This is hardly a satisfactory outcome for the environment. It is hardly a satisfactory outcome for certainty for industry and the states.But that is not the only concern. It is not just a limitation in terms of matters of national environmental significance; we have a whole raft of other mechanisms through which the states are given responsibility to exercise the power that the Commonwealth should be assuming. In respect of that, we have the concept of bilaterals. I must start with the concept of bilaterals because I think this is a particularly insidious concept. Through bilateral agreements we basically have a situation where the Commonwealth can vest authority in the states for both the approval and the assessment of a particular project. The bilateral agreement concept has met with universal reaction and concern from across the stakeholders. The proposed operation of bilateral agreements has caused acute concern for both industry and environmental groups. The bill provides that a bilateral agreement may declare certain classes of action exempt from the Commonwealth approval processes if they have been approved by the Commonwealth, a state or a territory; they have been approved by a specified agency in a specified matter; or the actions are in accordance with a strategic assessment. Let me say in respect of all those concepts—specified action and specified matters—that it is essentially left to an unfettered discretion by a federal minister. The bill explicitly excludes a decision by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to grant a governmental authorisation, however defined, to another person to take an action that excludes from environmental control. Moving on from bilateral agreements, the bill also provides a capacity for the minister to declare that a proposed action does not require Commonwealth approval if the Commonwealth or one of its agencies has approved the action in a specified manner.The list goes on. There is a capacity for the minister to agree to a strategic assessment of the impact of a policy, plan or program with a person or corporation responsible for such plans. So they can get together, they can come to an agreement in respect of a policy, plan or program and then the minister can declare that such policy, plan or program does not require Commonwealth approval. Given the wideness of the phrase and given the lack of scrutiny over the mechanism used here, there has got to be concern—and it is quite amazing that once again the Democrats have decided they can actually come to an agreement with the government in respect of this.We then have conservation agreements. The minister says, `Oh, you've got them already,' but what we do not have already is the breadth of conservation agreements that the minister introduces in this legislation and also the lack of scrutiny over them. In terms of these conservation agreements, there are no environmental requirements for conditions on the discretion of the minister to enter into conservation agreements. There is also, for instance, no requirement for input from traditional owners in relation to conservation agreements. I mentioned world heritage earlier. In respect of world heritage listed areas, the bill only obliges the Commonwealth to develop a written management plan for a world heritage area if it falls within a Commonwealth area. There is no requirement in this legislation for such a plan in relation to a world heritage area falling within a state or a territory, despite the Commonwealth's specific international obligations on this point.The history of the seventies would provide testament to the fact that we need a broader range of areas to be covered here. For instance, the bill—in respect of world heritage—only requires the Commonwealth to establish a permit system in relation to a threatened species, threatened ecological communities and migratory species in relation to Commonwealth land only. So if you want certainty and if you want a lack of duplication, you will not get it here, because the Commonwealth has responsibility in respect of a limited range of land and the states may choose not to take up their responsibility in respect of other sectors of Australian land. So you will find stakeholders having to go through two processes to get one outcome.I mentioned indigenous communities. Their concerns over this legislation are many. Despite a last minute concession by the government, given what we know so far—and, once again, we have not seen the agreement with the Democrats—there is concern that there will be disruption to joint management arrangements in respect of areas such as Kakadu, Uluru and Wreck Bay; disruption that will be unacceptable to the traditional owners and their supporters. The environmental bills were developed—despite a commitment by the minister that nothing would be done without the consent of TOs—with negligible consultation with indigenous communities. They got a commitment that there would be no change without consent; the next thing they saw was legislation which disrupted the existing system of joint management.Bilateral agreements, for instance, may impair or extinguish aspects of native title, and they significantly undermine world respected joint management practices in the Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta national parks. Let us be mindful of this: by disrupting those existing joint management plans, there is a real legal possibility that the existing arrange ments between traditional owners and the Commonwealth could very well be overturned. Leases held by the Commonwealth could be terminated by the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and land taken from the traditional owners. There are specific clauses proposed in this legislation that anticipate such an event, clauses that would lead to the termination of leases. More than most other Australians, I would say, indigenous people have a very strong interest in the environment through their continuing close physical, spiritual, social and economic attachment to it, and in many cases there is dependency on the land and its native flora and fauna. These people have been ignored in the process. These people get ridden over in this legislation.Our view of the bill is that it needs amendment. I said to the minister a few weeks ago that we have some 200 to 300 amendments to this legislation. We really have close to 300 amendments but they cannot be finalised until we see the government's amendments. They cannot be finalised until we see what deal has been done, once again behind closed doors, between this minister and the most gullible of senators, Lyn Allison and Meg Lees. We do not know what is happening with the Democrats. They have basically excluded from consultation their self-claimed constituency, the environmental groups. They have been told over the last few weeks that they have no place at the table. But now we seem to have an outcome which is acceptable to both the Democrats and the government. From our perspective and the perspective of so many concerned people, not just now but over the last 30 or 40 years in the struggle for environmental issues in this country, there is real disquiet, unrest and concern about this arrangement. A bill that we think—and that the Environmental Defender's Office thinks—needs some 300 amendments is coming in for debate in this place at the last moment without any clear idea of what the government's amendments are.We will try to amend this legislation. We fear a guillotine. We know that the Democrats and the government do not fear a guillotine. We have had the message already that there is a suggestion that this legislation should go through as quickly as possible so that stakeholders do not become wised up to the implications of it. We will try to take every opportunity in this place to ensure that there are amendments. As I say, we have some 300 amendments. We have amendments that go to the review mechanism, transparency of decision making, public accountability, natural justice and the rights of indigenous Australians. We need to broaden the scope of the legislation in accordance with the COAG agreement. We need to have greenhouse triggers, for instance. We are basically going to try to do in this parliament what the government has not done with this legislation over the last 12 months or so.Any acceptable bill will retain a pivotal role for the National Parks and Wildlife Service—not just as a token position or as a substitute for the body as a whole. Clear penalties are needed—in some circumstances, criminal penalties. We will provide for the Auditor-General to fulfil the environmental audit functions that this legislation prescribes. We will move amendments to better protect world heritage areas. We do not want to water down the currently existing provisions. We need to ensure that this legislation takes the opportunity to protect Ramsar wetlands. We need to redraft provisions for committees to ensure, for instance, indigenous representation with respect to some.Basically, this is a bill drafted in the department of, I suppose, wishful thinking on behalf of a minister who is wedded to the concept of state rights. It seeks to banish the pesky greenies from the agenda. This is a bill that, basically, will trigger broad community concern. It will trigger the sort of action that we used to have in the 1960s and 1970s. When people cannot access the rights they fought for through the parliament and the courts, they will take to the streets, the forests and so on to protect the areas they have always wanted to protect and they thought were protected from the hands of government, avaricious developers and other such stakeholders.The minister could have dealt with this better. He should take the bill away and start again. The least he should do is complete the debate on the second reading at this stage and bring the bill back in August. That would give the public, stakeholders and the parliament some time to scrutinise the legislation. (Time expired)13:24:005903Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I will be speaking on what is contained in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. My colleague Senator Brown, who will make a contribution later, I am sure, will be speaking in detail about what the bill is actually going to be when it is presented to us, as it has been transformed in view of the deal between the Australian Democrats and the government.We admit that a review of Australia's environment legislation is well overdue. Since the pioneering environmental legislation of the 1970s and the 1980s was put in place, there have been considerable changes in our understanding of ecological processes, in the community's expectation of government and in our understanding of the extent of the Commonwealth's powers, which can be considerable, as shown by various High Court decisions. That community expectation, I hasten to add, has not decreased; it has increased.We also have a greater desire to deal with the environment and the economy in an integrated manner. I would argue, and have argued over the last six years, that separating those is artificial and damaging. The bill is a severe disappointment in terms of providing Australia with forward looking legislation that can help us face the environmental challenges that are either emerging or already with us. In some respects the bill has the potential to be a complete disaster.The Greens (WA) consider that the development process of the bill itself reflects the government's underlying desire to wash its hands of any significant involvement in environmental affairs. The main genesis of the bill is the heads of agreement by the Council of Australian Governments of 1997, otherwise known as the COAG agreement. We do not consider that COAG is a valid basis for legislation because of its secrecy and lack of accountability. The only interest group seri ously considered has been government, and the lowest common denominator has often prevailed.The Greens (WA) believe that more genuine efforts to consult with the public during the development of the bill would have resulted in legislation that better reflected community concerns. Although the minister released a consultation paper on the proposed legislation, many of the witnesses told the committee that there was limited time to respond to the proposals and the government appeared not to have taken into account the comments that had been made. Complaints about the process came from the full range of industry, environment and community groups. Traditional owners were not consulted in any meaningful way on proposed changes to their lease agreements in Uluru, Kakadu and Booderee.The consideration of the bill by the public and the committee was also made difficult by the lack of detail in relation to bilateral agreements and the regulations which are fundamental to an understanding of the implications of the bill and to its `successful' operation. Industry groups noted time after time that this created an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for them, and consistently requested that the legislation be delayed. Overall, the bill is an attempt to wind the clock back and allow the Commonwealth to retreat from its responsibilities. This is the only explanation, for example, that can be given for limiting Commonwealth environmental assessment and approval to a mere six matters in the bill.The Commonwealth is also retreating from its national and international environmental obligations in its proposed use of bilateral agreements with the states and territories to hand over Commonwealth assessment and approval responsibilities. While the Greens (WA) have no conceptual difficulties with the states and territories having a role in assessment processes, this must only occur subject to best practice environment processes and other safeguards, and based on an acceptance of Commonwealth involvement and approval. These safeguards and constraints are missing, reinforcing the overall impression of the bill that the Commonwealth is giving itself as many avenues as possible to devolve its environmental obligations, despite the various answers given by the minister in response to questions leading up to this bill.Overall, there are three fundamental objections to the bill. There are lots of others, but these are fundamental. The first is the inadequate definition and use of ecologically sustainable development principles in the bill. ESD has become the concept that encapsulates the desire to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in all economic and social decision making. The concept of ecologically sustainable development, it was argued, was originally designed to ensure that environmental considerations were taken into account in all decision making, economic and social. I have heard it argued also that originally ESD principles were to give industry a greater say, but when people started looking at those principles they realised they had to strike a balance that was fairer to the environment.So ironically the process of ESD was about giving industry a greater involvement and even governments have turned away from that, especially this government. Unfortunately, the phrase has been contorted even further in the intergovernmental negotiation process—and hence in the EPBC Bill—so that all Australian governments could at least give lip-service to it. For example, the definition of ESD in the EPBC Bill has the precautionary principle and public involvement as `guiding principles' only, not as core objectives.Many submissions and witnesses commented that the objects clause contains watered-down objectives that do not project a strong commitment to environmental protection and that environmental issues take second place to economic and social issues. For example, while the bill requires decisions on environmental approvals to take all economic and social considerations into account, ESD principles, such as they are, need only to be taken into account in relation to the particular matter which triggers assessment—clause 136. In effect, the bill ensures that economic and social factors are incorporated into environ mental decisions, maybe. It does not require environmental factors to be part of social or economic decision making.Why I said `maybe' is that in the past once again the Labor government set up the Resources Assessment Commission to do this very thing. Currently, there is no equivalent of the Resources Assessment Commission. So what process is going to take place? Could it be that resources and economic ministers are still going to have the say over what goes on in the environment? Hence the objects of this EPBC Bill, for example, should indicate an unequivocal commitment to protect the environment, rather than `to provide for the protection of the environment'.In a similar vein, the bill should commit to ecologically sustainable development, rather than `to promote ecologically sustainable development'; that is, to promote as in, `We'll think about it, we'll look into it'—the mirror-mirror syndrome. And the bill should conserve biodiversity, rather than `to promote the conservation of biodiversity'—send out a few leaflets; that should do. The objects should also explicitly acknowledge the importance of public consultation and involvement in environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, but it becomes very inconvenient for federal governments to actually listen to the community, doesn't it?Ecologically sustainable development should be defined rigorously in all environmental legislation, and the objects of any legislation should place ecologically sustainable development and its principles at centre stage. For example, qualifications like those in the objects of the EPBC Bill are unacceptable. Public involvement at all key stages in environmental planning and approval processes should also always be required. Quite frankly, within government departments there is not the knowledge, skill and depth of information to provide for proper decision making unless the community is involved. There is not the money to provide that within the environment departments. The knowledge is often with the community and it is not even possible for all that intimate, detailed local knowledge to be gained by one government department or even two.Let us look at the limited view as to the Commonwealth's responsibilities. There is no question that the EPBC Bill is based on a very narrow view of Commonwealth environment involvement. There can be no justification to restricting Commonwealth involvement in assessment and approval to a mere six matters of national environmental significance. The set chosen by COAG ignores some of the most significant environmental challenges facing Australia today: climate change, the clearing of native vegetation which is one of the most serious threats to Australia's biodiversity, the loss and degradation of native forests, and the unsustainable use of water. These matters are undoubtedly of national environmental significance and should be subject to the Commonwealth's environmental assessment and approval process.The majority report on the EPBC Bill argues that the bill is not intended to address all matters of national environmental significance identified in the COAG Heads of Agreement. The government asserts that broadscale matters such as climate change and vegetation clearance are being adequately dealt with by programs and policy responses. Yet Australia continues to see, for example, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and an alarming loss of native vegetation. The involvement of the Commonwealth in government programs such as the Greenhouse Challenge is not a substitute for the capacity to assess and approve the environmental impacts of particular projects; for example, the building of a large coal power plant. Similarly, the existence of the national pollutant inventory is not a substitute for the capacity to assess, approve and impose conditions on a new petrochemical plant. It is clear that administrative approaches alone are not sufficient and require legislative backing.The majority report argues that there are practical difficulties in applying environmental impact assessment to climate change, vegetation clearance and water issues in a way which is consistent with Commonwealth environmental powers and which does not overlap state and local government responsibilities. The Greens (WA) note that a number of witnesses and submissions indicated that appropriate thresholds could be applied so that only major activities of national environmental significance require environmental assessment and approval by the Commonwealth.Any list of matters of national environmental significance requiring environmental impact assessment should therefore include at least climate change, native vegetation, forests and the sustainable use of water, with appropriate thresholds to exclude matters that are not of national significance. These are in addition to those matters proposed by the government in the EPBC Bill. There is concern about the large scope for ministerial discretion and other exemptions from the bill.The bill does contain a number of positive elements. However, these are relatively small benefits when the overall bill and the process by which it was developed are considered. While the bill purports to deal with matters of national environmental significance, the omissions are so obvious, and the qualifications to those remaining potentially so extensive, that they amount to a fundamental abrogation of the Commonwealth's environmental responsibilities.Many witnesses expressed concern about the numerous avenues for exemption under the EPBC Bill. In addition to the problem of the limitation to six matters that can `trigger' Commonwealth assessment and approval, there are a number of ways by which the requirement for an approval can be avoided altogether.The way that bilateral agreements can be used is discussed above. The Greens (WA) and the Australian Greens consider it essential that the Commonwealth not be able to evade its environmental responsibilities through ministerial declarations, conservation agreements and things such as regional forest agreements. Ministerial discretion also needs to be reined in to reduce the potential for making arbitrary decisions and evading obligations to protect the environment and conserve biodiversity.There also appears to be a clear intent on the part of the Commonwealth to use the EPBC Bill to give away its responsibilities for approving actions impacting on matters of national environmental significance, despite what the minister has said again and again. The EPBC Bill does not even provide for sufficient safeguards to ensure that accredited state governments fulfil the national obligations entrusted to them. So it has no teeth.That these safeguards and constraints are missing reinforces the overall impression of the bill that the Commonwealth is giving itself as many avenues as possible to devolve its national and international environmental obligations. It is unacceptable to devolve approval powers relating to matters of national environmental significance, particularly given the Commonwealth's responsibility for meeting Australia's obligations under international environment agreements and the poor record of states and territories in protecting the environment. I mention my own state of Western Australia's poor record on greenhouse gas emissions. Then the Western Australian government say that the rest of the states have to reduce theirs so they can produce more. What a joke.Given the need for consideration of the environment in all policy decisions and for those decisions to be reviewed and audited, the Greens would like to propose that a commissioner for the environment be established. There is no provision in the EPBC Bill for independent reviews of the environmental role and operations of the Commonwealth government.A number of submissions and witnesses presented compelling evidence on the need for an independent authority to conduct such reviews and report to the public. The Australian Greens and the Greens (WA) consider that a commissioner for the environment would provide an important safeguard for ensuring best environmental practice. For example, a commissioner could investigate and report on whether any environmental agreements with the states were consistent with rigorous accreditation criteria and whether states were complying with conditions in those agreements.It is clear that the momentum for achieving ecologically sustainable development in the operations of the Commonwealth—which began with the ESD Working Group process in the early 1990s—has been lost. The Greens (WA) believe that the momentum must be renewed by placing an obligation on Commonwealth departments and agencies to prepare and implement individual strategies for achieving ecologically sustainable development. We heard just yesterday in the report on energy efficiency strategies that a great deal of those policies have not even been implemented in Commonwealth buildings. So it just shows how lacking in political will we are at the moment.A commissioner for the environment would have an important role in auditing the performance of departments in implementing their strategies. This concept has been put into practice in other countries such as Canada, where the annual green reports of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development are providing valuable independent information on the performance of the federal government in fulfilling its environmental objectives and promises.A commissioner for the environment should be established as an independent authority to review the performance of the Commonwealth in fulfilling its environmental objectives and priorities. For example, it could review the performance of Commonwealth departments in implementing their ESD strategies.The Greens believe that the bill should be withdrawn. I will give you another reason for this: to enable a genuine community consultation process to be implemented to help draw up replacement legislation that reflects the Commonwealth's responsibility to protect Australia's environment. We are backed up in this by a number of key Aboriginal groups who have had concerns. There are major issues in the bill of great concern to indigenous Australians, and indigenous Australians have been some of the most determined in their approach to us on the need for deferral of this billIndigenous people have a very strong general interest in the environment through their continuing physical, spiritual, social and economic attachment and dependency on the land and its native wildlife. Many indigenous people live within an integrated set of cultural and natural heritage values, transforming land and environment into landscape and country. They often have an intimate knowledge of native flora and fauna and its relationship to the environment. Indigenous people own and reside in a significant portion of Australia's marginal and fragile landscapes. Indigenous people have historically suffered the most from environmental effects, mistakes and disasters of inappropriate land use and exploitation.Any proposals on these issues need to be thoroughly canvassed with indigenous communities, and consultations need to take account of culturally appropriate methodologies. These include allowing time for consideration by traditional owners, representative bodies and the broader community. Most indigenous stakeholders do not have access to national media or familiarity with legislative processes and have therefore not had an opportunity to consider the nature and substance of the government's proposals. While they may be represented by organisations such as land councils or ATSIC, these bodies cannot truly represent all of the indigenous concerns without the opportunity, in a realistic time frame, to consult directly with their constituents.There has never been a dedicated and complete exercise to map the range of indigenous environmental concerns. On this basis, until there is consultation directly with indigenous stakeholders, the government cannot be sure that they have appropriately framed the range of Commonwealth powers or developed appropriate mechanisms to reflect and respond to indigenous concerns. I have heard very concerning reports in relation to the bill that indigenous stakeholders went to the Democrats and put those concerns strongly to them and that they believe they have not been properly heard. We will hear what the outcome is today. I am sure my colleague Senator Brown will mention them.A major issue for indigenous people is the lack of monitoring of state regimes by the federal government and the conditions under which responsibilities may be transferred to the states. The stakeholders are very clear in their view that their concerns about consulta tion have not been taken seriously—not by the government, in this case, or the Democrats. They stress that the consultation must involve more than just putting advertisements in the media and talking to peak organisations. A bill as important to Aboriginal people as this must be taken to the people. There must be a period of listening and waiting. Before my time expires, I move my second reading amendment:At the end of the motion, add "but, noting concerns expressed by the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia, the Wilderness Society, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, aboriginal traditional owners and others about the need to consult properly with respect to any proposed amendments to this bill, the Senate resolves that consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the first day of sitting in August 1999".There is more that I can say, but I hope that this bill at least will be given proper consideration. I would hate to think that this bill would be the source of a gag later on this day.13:44:005907Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, at about the time I was born—about 10 years before you were brought forth—the last live thylacine, the last Tasmanian tiger to be captured alive, was brought in to Waratah.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Has that got any relationship with his birth?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—It has, you see. The parliamentary secretary quite properly asks has that got anything to do with his birth; and it has got a lot to do with his birth, in the sense that Senator McKiernan has lost the opportunity of ever seeing in the wild, or even in the zoo, a Tasmanian tiger—and that means that the generation to which he belongs has been denied that ability, because of what previous generations have done.That leads to the first point I want to make, and it is this: the whole issue of the environment is a matter of what is right not simply for this generation but for other generations as well. Martin Flannigan in the Melbourne Age recently wrote a very evocative piece about the Tasmanian tiger and said not only that had it gone, apparently disappeared, but that there are now desperate efforts to try to get it back, to recreate the Tasmanian tiger, the thylacine, because of what has been lost.That is very much what this debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] is all about and what the issue of the environment is all about. It is about what is lost and cannot be regained, and about what is proper to maintain and what is not. Does it matter that the Tasmanian tiger has disappeared? Does it matter that it was slaughtered and a bounty put upon it for many years before, too late, people realised what they were losing? I think it does matter and I do think it is a symbol. Unless you are careful, of course, you lose not only an animal that is unique but a desert that is unique, a piece of ground that is unique. You might—going back to Senator Patterson's remarks—lose the state that the Great Ocean Road in Victoria is in at the moment, unless proper care is taken. You may lose clean air over cities, the beaches upon which the children play or the atmosphere in which people work. They are all issues of what the environment is about.Nobody, it seems to me, is arguing that the environment is not important. But this legislation is such that there are signs that the Commonwealth is not taking the issue of the environment as seriously as it should. It is also taking the approach that somehow the states are separate in this issue from the Commonwealth; that somehow it is the states that are really responsible for the environment and not the Commonwealth; that the states have inherited the environment from the time that they were colonies and that it is the states' right or obligation to do all that really needs to be done about the environment, except on some big issues which are quite limited.The bill, if passed, would give up rights that the Commonwealth has under the Constitution, in the sense of not exercising those rights. I do not mean that they would lose those rights under the Constitution but that they would give them up, in the sense of not exercising them as they should. There is a concept behind this bill which says that the states have the primary responsibility in protecting our environment and that the states shall take up the task that is needed to ensure that the place we live in is a proper and reasonable place in which we can, as Australians, enjoy the life that is potentially there.That is a wrong conception of the constitutional and legal obligations of the Commonwealth. It is clear from cases, such as the Franklin Dam case, that the Commonwealth has the power and, indeed, the obligation to protect our environment. To make that clear, I will quote—and Senator Cook will recognise this—from the Chief Justice of the High Court at the start of the 1970s, Sir Garfield Barwick, who was, prior to being the Chief Justice, a member of the Menzies government. This is what he says about the states and Commonwealth and the relationship between the two, in the case of Victoria and the Commonwealth:I have observed elsewhere that the Constitution does not represent a treaty or union between sovereign and independent States. It was the result of the will and desire of the people of all the colonies expressed both through their representative institutions and directly through referenda to be united in one Commonwealth with an agreed distribution of governmental power.He says later on:The constitutional arrangements of the colonies were retained by, and subject to, the Constitution as the constitutional arrangements for the government of those portions of the Commonwealth to be known as States. These, though coterminous in geographical area with the former colonies, derived their existence as States from Constitution itself: and being parts of the Commonwealth became constituent States.He goes on later, and this is the last bit that I will quote from him:But the outstanding fact that the Act—that is, the act of the Imperial Parliament—created the Commonwealth as the embodiment of the people of Australia and gave it, amongst other things, legislated power over the enumerated subject matters cannot be gainsaid.What is being said is that the Constitution creates not only the Commonwealth but also the states and that the Constitution gives the Commonwealth power. On the basis of the power given by the Constitution, the Commonwealth—and this is me speaking now, on the basis of what Sir Garfield Bar wick said—has a duty to ensure that all parts of Australia are properly protected.When Lake Pedder was lost in Tasmania that was a loss not only for Tasmanians but for Australians as a whole. Do we as a nation say that the Great Barrier Reef is the responsibility of the Queensland government only? Do we say that the Great Australian Bight, which you fly over regularly, Mr Acting Deputy President, is a place that Victorians have no interest in, that only South Australians and West Australians have a say in that? Or are they part of a land which affects us all in terms of not only the comfort with which we might live but also our spiritual existence? When we talk about Australia we are talking about a certain sort of place; we are talking about an embodiment of a land that we love and respect.This bill unfortunately, if passed, would enable people to exploit in a wrong manner the land which belongs to us all. That is what the issue of environmental protection and proper development is concerned with—how the land can be used in a way that is suitable to the sort of place it is. History has shown us that over the couple of centuries that we as Europeans have been in Australia the land has been violated in a very serious manner. We have recently had sessions on television—I think it has been repeated a couple of times on the various channels—about the salt rising in the land and killing off the soil so that the land cannot properly be used. Is that an issue simply for the states in which that occurs or is that an issue for us as Australians?When the second reading speech to this bill is looked at there is cause for alarm in terms of the concepts that the government has brought into the debate. For example, it states:An activity which does not have a significant impact on one of the matters of national significance will no longer trigger Commonwealth involvement in the assessment and approval process—even if it requires a Commonwealth decision or approval such as foreign investment approval.The second reading speech states quite explicitly that the Commonwealth is going to draw back from its responsibilities, even when a decision is required from the Commonwealth about the issue in hand. That is a statement which, in my view, condemns the government in its approach to this issue. The issue then arises against what standards, against what criteria are measurements to be made as to whether the land, air and sea are being used as they should be, with proper respect for the integrity of the land, sea and air. I notice on page 81 of the report on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 the following statement:A large number of submissions criticised the Bill on the grounds that it contains few environmental standards in relation to bilateral agreements.It goes on to say:Key conservation groups were concerned that the standards set out in clauses 51 to 55 are `vague, non-binding and weakened by Ministerial discretion' and that the Bill provided too much discretion to set detailed standards in the regulations.This is a matter of great and grave importance. How are we, as a nation, going to measure whether we have properly treated the land, air and sea which we claim is ours? The Commonwealth has not set out any criteria. There is no measurement set forth so that people who live on this land can measure against a set of tests as to how we as a nation are treating the land, sea and air with which we have been blessed, and we have been blessed in Australia. But, having been blessed with this land, we have not, up until recently in any event, turned our minds to how we can best protect the place we have been given.During the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s we were as a nation taking on the responsibilities we had to this place that is ours, but this bill turns back the clock. As Senator Margetts has said, and as Senator Bolkus has pointed out, this is a backward step; this is going back to where we should not be. Madam President, I notice that two o'clock is upon us so I will sit down.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice590959095909Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. Has the minister recently received a request from the New South Wales government for urgent discussions with the states and territories on its proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] ? Did the New South Wales government also express concern at the lack of process with negotiations on the bilateral agreements under that bill—agreements which impact directly on Commonwealth-state responsibilities? Will the minister give an assurance that any amendments to the bill which may have been hatched in a secret deal with the Australian Democrats will be circulated with sufficient time to enable informed input from all stakeholders before we proceed to detailed debate on the bill in the Senate?5910Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This is an extraordinary question because the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill is implementing an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Agreement with the Democrats.BH4Senator HILL—No. Regrettably Senator Bolkus fails to understand the situation, so I will explain it to him.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Speak slowly.BH4Senator HILL—Take it slowly? This is a bill putting into law an agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the states in 1997—a process that started in 1996. For Senator Bolkus's benefit, it started with publishing a discussion paper and a request for input from the states and from stakeholders.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That's right—we know all this.BH4Senator HILL—I do not think Senator Bolkus does know, Madam President; that is why I am spelling it out for him. After that ensued a long and at times difficult negotiation between the Commonwealth and the states to settle such matters as what should be defined as national environmental significance, because both the Commonwealth and the states were in agreement that existing laws had failed and that there needed to be a new rationalisation that not only would better protect the environment from a national perspective but also would be easier to operate from the point of view of the users—those who have to operate within the legislation. That negotiation took place during 1997 and an agreement was reached under the head of COAG late in 1997. That became the framework for the development of the legislation. Then a further discussion paper was issued which fleshed out the details of the COAG agreement. The stakeholders, including the states, were invited to contribute further, and they so did. A bill was drafted well over a year ago, Madam President.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. This is a history lesson from the minister. I have asked him about the amendments which even the Senate has not seen as yet, and I have asked him about bilateral agreements which are still being negotiated with the states. I asked the minister to address his mind to whether there will be enough time for stakeholders to address their concerns in respect of the amendments which have not even seen the light of day in this place.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister will deal with that, but he seems to me to be putting the answer in the context of the question.BH4Senator HILL—The bill was then drawn and obviously became public knowledge. There followed some 11 months of assessment of the bill by the parliament—through the parliamentary committee process of this Senate. So the states and all stakeholders contributed again. For Senator Bolkus's benefit, they all wrote in and submitted their views. After that, there was a process of negotiation, again taking into account the advice of the Senate committee and submissions that had been made direct to government by all of the key stakeholders, including the state governments. Then the states sent a list of changes that they would like to see. I called a meeting of the state governments. That took place, and we have been able to take up a number of their suggestions.After that, the states wrote again and suggested that we look at some further suggestions. For the benefit of Senator Bolkus, we have been able to take up some of their further suggestions. Never has there been such a cooperative process; never has there been such a comprehensive process. This has gone on since 1996, with all the steps that I have set out, and it has finally reached the situation of debate in the chamber. Most of the concerns of the states we have been able to accommodate, but within this scheme there is a recognition that there are Commonwealth responsibilities and there are state responsibilities. The goal is that we then work cooperatively together to implement the scheme in the interests of getting a better national environmental outcome.In relation to the assessment process, yes—for the benefit of Senator Bolkus—there is envisaged a set of bilaterals on assessment and approval processes which, pursuant to the bill when it becomes law, will be negotiated with the states. (Time expired)5911Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that we have not as yet seen these amendments; they have not been presented to parliament. Can the minister confirm that there will be a meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council on 2 July, and that he has had a request from at least the New South Wales and Tasmanian governments to ensure that state ministers are given an opportunity for constructive discussion on these amendments which have been hatched in a secret meeting with the Democrats? Will the minister agree to this request, or will he ignore it and rush the bill through, with the connivance of the Australian Democrats, in order to prevent any inconvenient input from the states?5911Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—How can something be referred to as being rushed through if it started in 1996? It is just impossible. If Senator Bolkus had taken up the opportunity we offered for a briefing, he might know more about the content. Until today, he has been uninterested in the issue. All of a sudden he is playing catch-up politics and trying to win back a bit of a constituency. The constituency he is seeking has moved on; the constituency he is seeking wants to work with government to achieve better environmental outcomes on the ground. Out of this piece of legislation those better outcomes can be achieved. It is good for the state governments; it is good for the environment; it is good for industry because they will have streamlined processes of assessment; and, most of all, it is good in terms of a better national environmental outcome.59115911Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The social bonus provides a unique opportunity to make a national commitment to improving telecommunications infrastructure.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That's not what Richard Court said.4L6Senator EGGLESTON—I am sure that is not the case. Will the minister explain to the Senate the benefits which the nation will receive as a result of the social bonus associated with the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra?5911Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think there should be any doubt in the minds of all Australians that last night's result was a tremendous boost to information infrastructure, particularly in regional and rural Australia. It will mean expanded access to information technology; it will mean that an extra one million Australians will have access to SBS; and it will mean that our networks will be world class and that moneys that would not otherwise ever have been available will go to the most needed areas.It is critically important that these opportunities are shared equitably amongst all Australians, not simply concentrated in a couple of the major states on the east coast. One of the major programs, of course, is Building Additional Rural Networks, a $70 million program which will give $10 million to each of the states. It is extraordinary, isn't it, that once you actually distribute money to all of the states you get howls from the Labor Party. Do they hate the minor states? Do they hate the bush? Clearly they do because, at the time of the last election, we had a Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund which had about $150 million in it and Senator Schacht's lasting contribution to public debate was that he got up and promised to knock it off, close it down, put the money in his back pocket. He did not even have something else to spend it on. It was absolutely extraordinary. So why do they hate the bush? I do not understand it, Madam President, and I am sure the bush does not either.We have a $45 million local government fund to enable local governments to get their services online. There is $6 million to each of the states and half that to each of the territories. Again, Labor want to knock it off. They hate this billion dollar program, do not see any redeeming virtue in it and carry on with rhetoric about bribes. What sort of a message is this sending to rural Australia and to the outlying states? It is basically that Labor could not give a damn. They are only interested in the people who Martin Ferguson is interested in. In other words, he is very worried about the chardonnay socialists who dominate places like the Australian Capital Territory. Quite rightly so; if you look at him, he obviously prefers a rough red. It ought to be blindingly obvious to the Labor Party that, if you want to get into the game, you have got to do a bit more than pander to a few of the elites in the metropolitan areas.Of course all of this is premised on the privatisation of Telstra. Why is the Labor Party against it? Who knows? Their current leader, of course, is on the record as saying:The Government has a proud record of successful privatisations . . .. . . I can claim to have been in on the ground floor of that process . . . when we sold the Williamstown Dockyard, corporatised the aircraft factories to form Aerospace Technologies . . . and corporatised the rest of the factories and Garden Island Dockyard.In addition, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation was sold . . . Preparations were also made . . . for a number of sales, including Qantas, ANL, ASTA, AIDC, and HLIC.There was also the Commonwealth Bank. There was not anything left when we got to government. We felt very frustrated. All the work had been done. There was only Telstra left. Where did Labor end up? Of course, opportunistically opposed. As Terry McCrann quite rightly says this morning, `You can't be half pregnant; you've gone to a point where we now have only 50 per cent or a bit more.' He says that Telstra `will be left in a state of suspended animation' until `Kim Beazley abandons cargo-cult populism, Labor gets a real leader, or wins an election, or Meg Lees stops thinking of chickens, whichever comes first.' Some of those are much more likely than others. It is much more likely they will get a decent leader before the next election and it would be a classic opportunity—Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—There are a couple of people who are clearly positioning themselves. (Time expired)5912Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would please advise the Senate whether there is any expanded mobile telephone coverage in South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia? Would he advise the Senate about the TIGER program and any other infrastructure initiatives which will flow from this social bonus?5912Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted, there is a million dollars for each of those three states that Senator Eggleston pointed out. Again, it is puzzling, isn't it, that Labor senators from South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania should be opposed to these initiatives. Again, what sort of message does this send? TIGER is a very important program—not just Tasmanian tigers; this is all about ensuring that we have programs to deliver electronic services in regional Australia which will extend to a range of innovative programs. We want to get incubators in place. We want to get small and medium sized enterprises plugged into the information revolution.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Is that for cooked chooks?LD4Senator ALSTON—It is all very well for people like Senator Campbell, who want to be on the front bench but are not prepared to do anything concrete about it, to just get up there and sandbag and, of course, argue for breaking Telstra up into little pieces. That is not the sort of thing Australians want to hear, Madam President. They want sensible, ra tional policies. You have got one chance to get it right. Louise Dodson's article said why Beazley's privatisation number is up. She is dead right.(Time expired)59135913Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that it is still a requirement, even in the watered down mark II version of the Prime Minister's code of conduct, for frontbenchers to resign directorships of companies which are not family farms or businesses? Can the minister also confirm that the Prime Minister has not required his front bench colleague Mr Entsch to resign his directorships of two non-family businesses, Cape York Concrete Pty Ltd and Vervale Pty Ltd? Does this mean it is no longer a requirement for frontbenchers to resign directorships of companies which are not family businesses, or is the Prime Minister granting Mr Entsch a special dispensation from his ministerial guidelines?5913Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I did not bring a copy of the guidelines with me—I thought it was yesterday's issue. So, rather than go on recollection, I will get a copy during question time and have a go at answering the question afterwards.5913Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Thank you. That would certainly be a change for Senator Hill. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. As he is going to get a copy of the code, does the minister recall the Prime Minister explaining Senator Gibson's resignation as parliamentary secretary in October 1996 as being due to `the perception of a conflict of interest, and a proper application of the guidelines means he has been obliged to tender his resignation'? Is the minister also aware that, in defending Mr Entsch, the Prime Minister has stated that `the ministerial code is meant as a guide for people's behaviour—it is not meant as a death sentence'? Why was the code a death sentence for Senator Gibson but, for Mr Entsch, it is merely a guide which can be ignored with impunity?5913Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is wrong, Madam President; it cannot be ignored with impunity. Of course, the point is that it is for the Prime Minister to interpret and enforce the guidelines, and he does that. He did it in relation to Senator Gibson, and he did it in relation to Mr Entsch. All I would like to say in relation to Senator Gibson is that I think he is an excellent senator. I think he did an excellent job as a parliamentary secretary and, furthermore, he did no wrongdoing. The Prime Minister is more than happy to say that he paid a high price, but the Prime Minister demands very high standards. That might be something unfamiliar to the Labor Party, but this Prime Minister demands high standards and expects them to be met.59135913Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Chris Ellison, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. What opportunities will be offered to the people of Australia to further invest in the share market through the sale of Telstra shares? How will the further sale of Telstra improve the Australian economy?5913Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Watson for that question; I know he has a longstanding interest in matters of this sort. The sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra to the public is indeed exciting news for the people of Australia; in fact, it is an opportunity for all Australians to invest in this great company. Look at the success of the first sale of 33.3 per cent of Telstra and the fact that 559,000 Australians invested in shares for the first time. It was a great thing for ordinary Australians to be able to invest in a great company. This government is offering a further opportunity for ordinary Australians to invest with this sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra. More than 1.8 million Australians took advantage of the opportunity to invest in Telstra. What we are seeing is Australians voting with their savings. They are saying: `We want to be a part of this.' We are looking at another success story in the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra. I might say that some members of the opposition also took up the opportunity to invest in the last sale—YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Very sensible.9X5Senator ELLISON—It was a very sensible investment, and I would encourage other Australians to follow suit. But we are not just looking at those people who invested previously; we are also looking at those who did not. So we are saying to the people of Australia: you have another chance to make a great investment.This sale will also benefit the economy of this country. The proceeds will go to cutting out debt—the irresponsible debt that Labor left us with. Most Australians understand, in their own personal finances, that they want to limit debt and cut it back, and so should a responsible government when it looks at the affairs of its country. This is something that Labor refused to look at. It was something that it did not address.Another aspect is increasing consumer confidence. What we are doing is involving Australians in investing in their own country. They want to have a part of their country, and this is going to increase consumer confidence which, in turn, will benefit the economy of this country. The members of the opposition are very quiet about this because they have failed to support this great initiative—especially those members of the opposition from remote parts of Australia. They have failed to address the great benefits that will be visited on regional Australia, as Senator Alston pointed out earlier when he addressed that question from Senator Eggleston.This sale will be handled by a government that is financially responsible and has shown that it can deal with this sort of sale. It will be a successful sale and one which the Australian people can have great confidence in.There will also be investment in the infrastructure of this nation, and that can only push the economy forward. So I say to the opposition: don't fight this; join with us in promoting this great sale of Telstra to give Australians a chance to invest in this great company and in the future of their own country.59145914Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. I ask whether the minister is aware of the Prime Minister's response to a question about Mr Entsch's failure to fully and accurately disclose his financial interests when the Prime Minister stated:I am satisfied, on the information available to me, that the honourable member has behaved in a bona fide fashion. There is no evidence of a conflict of interest.Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree with the Prime Minister's most recent interpretation of the parliament's requirement to disclose pecuniary interests, in particular the view that a non-disclosure is only a sin where a definite conflict of interest exists? Isn't this just a further sign of the Howard government's refusal to understand the importance of ongoing and rigorous checks and balances to avoid conflicts of interest? Why is it that the Howard government believes that a frontbencher's blatant failure to accurately describe his personal interests should escape any sanction at all, so long as he is not caught?5914Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank Senator Pete Cook for that question. It is a nonsense, though, because the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That went over like a lead balloon.BH4Senator HILL—He wants to call me Bob; I call him Pete. This is the new spirit of camaraderie.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He got a laugh; you didn't.BH4Senator HILL—Yes, I know, but at least we have a sense of humour on this side of the chamber. It gives me another minute to try to interpret the question, and that is what is important. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that there was an inadvertent error by Mr Entsch: he acknowledged his shareholdings in the company but he failed to record his directorship. The explanation was quite reasonable, particularly when it was pointed out that a number of Labor Party members had made the same mistake—and that ought to be acknowledged and recognised by the ALP. It was inadvertent. There was no detrimental consequence that flowed from it. There was no wrongdoing by Mr Entsch and that, I would have thought, would even have been acknowledged by Senator Cook. The matter has now been corrected and is at an end.5915Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not the case that parliament's right to full public disclosure of the financial interests of all persons elected to public office was designed to ensure that any conflict of interest would be transparent, as a means of ensuring that such conflicts or perceptions of conflicts do not arise? Was this not a preventative measure which members of Prime Minister Howard's frontbench have continually attempted to sidestep by widespread recourse to the `dopey' defence: `I didn't understand the question on the disclosure form, Your Honour'?5915Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I tried to explain yesterday—but I will repeat it for Senator Cook—there are obligations imposed by the parliament on—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Senator Peter Cook to you.BH4Senator HILL—Senator Cook—there are obligations imposed by the parliament, and we seek to meet those obligations. If we fail, then we stand the sanction of the parliament. In addition, there are obligations imposed by the Prime Minister upon his executive and, as has been demonstrated by an earlier question today, the sanction can be very grave indeed, even if there was no guilty act by the party. In this instance, there was an inadvertent omission to state a directorship. As has been demonstrated, it can easily occur. Even the Labor Party makes that mistake. But I really do think the contrast is remarkable, though. The Labor Party that had the Prime Minister running a pig farm from the Prime Minister's office has the nerve to come in here and attack Mr Entsch. (Time expired)59155915Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In light of last week's High Court decision in relation to cross-vesting, which may result in some uncertainty in different jurisdictions, could the minister explain what urgent steps will be taken by the Commonwealth government to ensure that existing proceedings will be safeguarded? I am also wondering if the minister could tell us what will happen to concluded cases.5915Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for her question. For those senators who might not be aware of the details of the case that Senator Stott Despoja refers to, on 17 June this year the High Court handed down its decisions in four cases concerning the operation of cross-vesting schemes. The court held by a six to one majority that the states could not confer jurisdiction on Federal Courts and that the Commonwealth could not consent to the vesting of that jurisdiction.The immediate effect of that decision is fourfold. It renders voidable many decisions made in the past 12 years by the Federal and Family Courts where those courts were exercising jurisdiction conferred by a state. Secondly, it operates to prevent further exercise of jurisdiction by the Federal and Family Courts in matters where they rely on cross-vesting. It makes it desirable for all such matters currently before those courts to be transferred to state Supreme Courts and to give additional work to state courts and reduce the work of Federal Courts.This decision did not come as a surprise, in the sense that a decision was impending for some time. People have been watching, waiting and in fact preparing for it. The Commonwealth government has made appropriate preparations in consultation with the states and territories. All the states are planning to introduce remedial legislation as soon as possible. That legislation will validate past decisions of the Family Court and Federal Court which have been affected by the High Court decision. The legislation will also provide for the smooth transfer to state Supreme Courts of ongoing matters that the Family Court or the Federal Court can no longer handle. The Federal and Family Courts will continue to have jurisdiction over matters arising under state laws that are closely related to federal matters before the courts. This means there will be very few cases where proceedings will be split between state and federal courts.Most Corporations Law disputes will have to be heard by state Supreme Courts. Before the decision, Corporations Law work accounted for only a small proportion of the work of the judges of the Federal Court and state matters accounted for a very small proportion of the work of Family Court judges. The Attorney-General is working with his state and territory colleagues to consider longer term alternatives to the arrangements which were invalidated by the High Court's decisions. In the meantime, all governments are working together to ensure that any disruption caused by the decision is kept to a minimum.5916Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer and I note that the minister has said that the government has been making preparations. I am wondering whether the minister believes that it is actually possible to make legislation that would be constitutionally valid to deal with these matters, including the enforceability of judgments. I am also wondering whether the resolution of these cross-vesting issues requires constitutional change.5916Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The advice that I have from the Attorney at this point does not indicate a necessity for that, but that of course would be an option. It might be one way to handle it, but it is not my advice that it is a necessity to handle it that way.59165916Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question without notice is directed to Senator Hill as Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources purchased the leasehold to two large investment properties near Trinity Bay in June last year? Is the minister aware that Mr Entsch purchased those leaseholds for $26,000, even though the unimproved capital value was $195,000 in October 1996? Is it a fact that as parliamentary secretary Mr Entsch released the CSIRO land and water technical report into East Trinity soils? Is the minister aware that Mr Entsch proceeded to misuse the findings of that report to advocate NatWest's East Trinity development? Is it a fact that, were the NatWest development to proceed, the value of Mr Entsch's leasehold would increase significantly? Minister, if that is not a conflict of interest, what is?5916Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I know nothing about the purchase of these properties.5916Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, that is, of course, not a satisfactory answer. The minister not only indicates that he knows nothing but also does not make to the Senate the offer of finding out about it if he does not know anything. But I will ask him to take those issues on notice and provide an urgent response. While he is at it, perhaps he can explain to the Senate why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources can find the time to be involved in what seem to be shonky land deals and concreting companies. He has responsibilities as the member for Leichhardt as well as his duties as a frontbencher in this government, but he can still find enough hours in the day to engage in blatant conflicts of interest with his public responsibilities.5916Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I must have misheard Senator Faulkner, because I thought Senator Faulkner said these properties were purchased in 1996, and I did not think Mr Entsch was a parliamentary secretary in 1996.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I said that as parliamentary secretary he released the CSIRO report. You weren't listening.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, stop shouting.BH4Senator HILL—As for this determination of guilt by the traditional method of Senator Faulkner—that is, you just assert it as loudly as possible—I think that is appalling. I think that is an appalling abuse of the privilege that Senator Faulkner has in this place. Who was it said 50 yards of courage? Let us see Senator Faulkner walk outside that door and make these assertions rather than use the coward's castle to try and make a political point. If Senator Faulkner really believed there was something in this, the question would not be being asked of me; it would be being asked elsewhere. 59175917Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I want to test the teeth in this sell-out, now Democrat endorsed, environment bill. On page 9 of the bill there is provision that any company which takes action which is likely to have a significant impact on world heritage is liable to a penalty of $5.5 million. In view of the advice of the minister's own department—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I raise a point of order—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am listening to the question and there are some aspects with it that cause difficulty. I would like to hear the whole question.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—My point of order is that he cannot ask the minister a question about the bill—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is correct, and that is why I am listening very carefully to it.QD4Senator BROWN—In view of the departmental advice to the minister that the proposed roads and forest harvesting operations in the Huon and Picton valleys of Tasmania are a significant adverse impact on the current Tasmania wilderness world heritage area, is the minister, with the passage of this bill, going to take action, with that $5.5 million penalty in hand, against the woodchip corporations which are causing that significant adverse impact on world heritage?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The first part of the question clearly deals with a clause of the bill and is out of order. The second part of the question may have some matters in it that I refer the minister to.5917Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—At the risk of being ruled out of order in answering the second part, it is true that the new scheme for national protection of the environment includes designating areas of national environmental significance. For the first time in the history of this country, there will be direct triggers, rather than indirect triggers that are linked to irrelevant activities. One of the areas of national environmental significance which appeared to be obvious to me was matters that are world heritage listed. At present there is no such process. At present there is no Commonwealth trigger in an activity that takes place in a world heritage area simply because of the fact of its location. So I would have thought that Senator Brown would have seen a positive step forward.I hope that within his question there is a hint that he recognises that for the Commonwealth government to take responsibility for world heritage in this way is something that he might like to commend. It is a first step for the Commonwealth to designate areas of national environmental significance and accept a Commonwealth responsibility for their protection, and then to work hand in glove with state governments that are dealing with their areas of environmental protection to deliver an overall better national outcome. That is what this government is seeking to achieve, and it is good that those who want to work constructively with this government—some of the green groups, for example; the Australian Democrats and others—have come on board and asked what can be delivered. They might ask for more, but what can be delivered is a significant step forward in the protection of our natural environment.Instead of just pulling stunts, today could be a day for Senator Brown to finally turn the corner and say he wants to contribute to a better outcome. He could actually vote for it. He might even come in here for the first time with suggestions to improve it. Of course, we asked him whether he wanted to engage in a consultation process, and he knew better and had no wish to do so. He has never wished to work with government towards a better environmental outcome and in his years in this place he has never delivered one better environmental outcome. That must be a matter of great disappointment to his constituency. I would have thought that they sent him here to get better environmental outcomes. Never once, with all the influence he has got of a very valuable vote, has he been prepared to negotiate to achieve a better environmental outcome. All he wants to do is pull a stunt—climb a tree, fall in front of a bulldozer and hope he gets on the evening news. But it is too late. Real environmentalists have gone forward and are actually improving the outcomes on the ground, and Senator Brown has been left behind.5918Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister ducked that; I will ask him to be more direct with this one. He mentions the Democrat cooperative approach. I ask the minister: did the Democrats approach the government to ensure that global warming would be a trigger in this legislation? Did they also approach the government to get clearance of native vegetation as a trigger? Did they ask the government to establish a commissioner for the environment? I ask the minister: on all three key Democrat counts did they fail and are their actions in trying to put a gloss on this disastrous legislation for the people of Australia more akin to the actions of a politician of the past called Quisling when it comes to the Australian environment?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, if there are any aspects of that you can comment on without debating the legislation before us, you may do so.5918Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is largely boring and irrelevant. The point is that the bill—obviously Senator Brown has not read the bill—is an implementation of a COAG agreement which sets out areas of national environmental significance and it allows for further areas to be listed by means of a consultative process. In relation to global warming, Senator Brown is two weeks behind the game because the government, out of another negotiation, has announced that it is prepared to enter into that consultation process with stakeholders. So, Senator Brown, it is just a pity that you did not come to the government and suggest such an initiative. If you had done so you would not be so irrelevant.59185918Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Is the minister aware of a report released by the CSIRO earlier this year which reveals that some of the worst acid and heavy metal pollution in the country is to be found on the east side of Trinity Inlet near Cairns? Is he aware that this is also the site for the proposed NatWest East Trinity Development, which will house up to 20,000 residents and include 15,000 square metres of retail development? Can he confirm that when his parliamentary secretary, Mr Entsch, released the report he stated that, in response to such damning environmental findings, the only economically viable option may be to allow NatWest to go ahead with its development plans? Did Mr Entsch inform the minister that he owns two investment properties near the development site? Did he inform the minister that, if the development goes ahead, he is set to make a significant profit on his own project?5918Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the third question is that I cannot confirm that matter; it will have to be checked after question time. On the fourth question, I have no knowledge of any alleged investments by Mr Entsch at the alleged site.5918Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister saying that he has not read the CSIRO report? It may well be—I understand arrangements in portfolios—that that has been delegated to someone else. I would like him to at least confirm that he has neither read the report nor received, if you like, a submission on the basic contents of the report. I would like that established before we take this any further.5918Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I have not read that report.59185918Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. I refer to the decision by the federal government to proceed with the Albury-Wodonga freeway and I ask: (1) does the projected costing for the internal route for this freeway include all costs or does the government expect there will be further costs incurred in the design and construction stages; (2) do the current estimates include social and health costs; (3) has a full costing of the alternative external route been done and is this costing available to the public; (4) is the government aware that the majority of Albury residents are opposed to the internal route for the freeway; and (5) should this freeway be renamed, as the internal route through the middle of Albury could not be called a `bypass'?5919Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am aware that a road through and by Albury is a contentious issue. I am aware there was a demonstration or gathering outside Parliament House yesterday which, I understand, Senator Woodley and Senator Allison attended. I also understand that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, left an important cabinet meeting to go out and speak with the people who had some concerns about that particular issue.Senator, wherever there are different routes for roadways you get conflict and differences of opinion. I assume it is no different in the Albury area. The proposed route of the road through Albury-Wodonga is one that the Albury City Council has been lobbying successive federal and state governments for for over 30 years now. The member for Farrer, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr Lou Lieberman, the member for Indi—just on the other side of the border—both support that internal route. As well, the Liberal state member for Albury, Mr Ian Glachan, also supports that route and he was just recently re-elected to his seat. So, Senator, when you say the people of Albury are opposed to it, I cannot imagine that is right when all three elected people representing the area support it and their support is well known and they continue to be re-elected.I am sorry I did not write down the precise questions, and if I miss some of the specific questions you have raised, Senator, I will try and get you answers to them—but you did raise the question of budgets and money. In the last budget we provided $7 million for further preconstruction works, such as investigation and design; preparation of tender documents; and land acquisition for the construction of this major project. In fact, your colleague Senator Lyn Allison went through this in some detail at the recent esti mates committee. The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority is the main planner of this area. Both the New South Wales government and the Victorian government in fact support the internal route but the New South Wales government has the responsibility for route selection and associated planning and environmental considerations. They are a state responsibility in the first instance. I am not trying to buck-pass: we the federal government accept what both state governments have said in relation to this.The proposed route, we think, will have a lot of benefits. It will result in a massive improvement in the amenity of the residents along the existing route. It will remove the traffic problems currently affecting the commercial and residential areas of Albury. Even if the external route were built, it would provide very little benefit to the residents of Albury because nearly 90 per cent of the traffic along the existing route would still enter Albury, so I am told. Senator, you would be pleased to know—as would your constituents or the people who approached you yesterday—that extensive measures are being taken to reduce the visual and noise impact of the route. Senator, I appreciate your concern. You are representing a view of some of the people of the Albury area, but I do not think it is a majority. This proposal has been reviewed any number of times and we think we are right. (Time expired)5919Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I do thank the minister for his answer. However, I wonder, Minister, if you are aware that despite three elections, as you point out—and it is always a debate about whether a mandate applies to specific items in terms of elections—four polls have shown that a majority of the residents of Albury are opposed to this route? Secondly, is the government aware that in most other states road construction avoids internal routes, even through small country towns? That is certainly true in Queensland, as you would know, and I cannot understand why the government is supporting the building of an internal freeway through Albury when most road authorities avoid such out-of-date, unhealthy and dangerous options.5920Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Why we are supporting the internal route is that it has been investigated any number of times by any number of independent and other authorities. It is supported by the two governments—New South Wales and Victoria—and the Albury City Council—and my own department. It has been the subject of very wide consultation with the people of Albury and, all in all, all of the experts and all of the authorities believe that it is the right one. I know you do not want me to give a dissertation on polls and opinion polls and mandates but, when you say that a poll of Albury people opposes it, you have to ask what the question was and how many actually responded to the poll. As we always say in this business, the only poll that really counts is on election day. This was a big issue both in the recent federal election and in the state election; it was a very big issue and candidates who were supporting it were elected by their constituencies. (Time expired)59205920Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I address my question to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. Have the activities of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Mr Entsch, in support of the proposed development at East Trinity near Cairns been drawn to the attention of the minister? Was the minister, his staff, his department or the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority invited to participate in the recent bus trip around the proposed development site with Mr Entsch and the developers? Is the minister aware of the widespread concerns that a development in this area will exacerbate the already serious acid sulphate problems in Trinity Inlet? Has Mr Entsch had any contact with the minister in relation to the proposed development or the acid sulphate problem?5920Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I knew that there was an acid sulphate issue and I understood that there were papers to be released on it which would better inform us all of the extent of that problem and hopefully what remedial action might be taken. Otherwise, I do not recall matters relating to a bus trip around Cairns. That might be something that Senator Reynolds was involved in, as a senator from Far North Queensland. In relation to GBRMPA: yes, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is concerned about damage and potential damage to the reef from acid sulphate resulting, in turn, from developments up the Queensland coast. It is a complex issue. There is a growing awareness of that fact and the science is improving on what are the direct and indirect consequences that can flow therefrom. That is all interesting background but I am not sure it is the political point the honourable senator is wanting to make. It is a bit sad in fact that she has been dragged into this exercise because I thought she was someone of higher standing.5920Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister has attempted to answer the second part of my question but my supplementary is: has Mr Entsch had any contact with the minister in relation to the proposed development?5920Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not know what development you are talking about.59205920Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Minister, earlier this month the government announced that it had allocated over $1.4 million since November 1996 to the trustee of Mr Skase's bankruptcy to help him recover Mr Skase's overseas assets. Minister, could you please inform the Senate as to the present position with respect to Mr Skase?5920Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Knowles for her question. She is correct in identifying that we did confirm, during the budget estimates hearings, that the federal government is continuing to fund the trustee to pursue Mr Skase's assets. The funding of $1.45 million is the extent of the Commonwealth's commitment in this matter in respect of completed activity. The federal government's funding has allowed the trustee to conduct overseas investigations in countries including the United Kingdom, Spain and the Cayman Islands and applications for injunc tive relief in Australia, the Cayman Islands, the United Kingdom and Spain, and the court examination in 1998 of the United Kingdom lawyer. The government is continuing in its commitment to pursue Mr Skase in addition to its commitment to fund his trustee in bankruptcy. We will not let him, by any act of omission on our part, obviate his obligations as a bankrupt under Australian law. However, it would be inappropriate for me to give any details at this stage of further activity being undertaken by the trustee.Senators can be assured that the Spanish authorities remain committed to ensuring that the current expulsion proceedings are appropriately resolved in accordance with Spanish law. Mr Skase was notified by the Spanish authorities in October 1998 that his application for residency had been denied. The Spanish authorities presented Mr Skase with a formal order. Mr Skase has appealed against that order. Even if he loses his current appeal to the Spanish Administrative Court, he still has a further right of appeal back to the regional Superior Court. The government stands ready to seek his extradition from a country other than Spain. It bears repeating that it is not possible for us to reopen extradition proceedings in Spain. What I want to do at this point is put on record the Australian government's appreciation of the continued firm commitment from the Spanish government to ensuring that the current expulsion proceedings are appropriately resolved in accordance with Spanish law.As to Mr Skase's health, we have all seen media reports of Mr Skase's recurring health problems. I am not—and Australian authorities are not—in a position to comment on media reports of his health, beyond noticing, as we all do, that the reports appear to increase as the legal steps associated with his removal from Spain proceed.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—That has a ringing familiarity.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Like someone else we know.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Australian doctors have never had the opportunity to properly examine Mr Skase. Skase has consistently refused requests for an examination from the time of the original extradition proceedings. However, I would also make the point that Australia is naturally prepared to arrange for his direct return here on a properly equipped medical evacuation jet should he be sensible enough to decide that the time for fighting this is over and it is time for him to come home. We will provide a properly equipped medical evacuation jet to bring him home. The advice I have is that that evacuation would be at least as safe as the conditions under which Mr Skase is presently residing in Majorca. I conclude by saying, in response to some of the interjections from the other side, that those people who gave him a 10-year passport, who let him get away in the beginning, who failed in their extradition proceedings to bring him back to Australia and who released Federal Court documents in relation to this matter have no business interjecting whatsoever.59215921Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. I refer to the new public housing measure included in the government's GST deal with the Democrats. I ask whether the minister can confirm that last week she told state housing ministers that:Additional funding in respect of the impact this will have on state housing authority revenue has been agreed between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. I intend now to gazette the draft agreement which has been amended to reflect this additional funding.Can the minister inform the Senate precisely how much additional funding the Commonwealth has agreed to provide the states as compensation for this measure?5921Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—There is additional funding available for the states in respect of the impact of taxation reform on public housing. The amount was $269 million and the Commonwealth invited the states to decide on how best it could be divided between them. I have not yet heard whether they have been able to reach agreement. The last time I heard they were finding it impossible to agree and were suggesting that they should come back to the Commonwealth and have us determine it.5922Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I thank the minister for her answer. I have a supplementary question as a result. Can the minister explain why the Treasurer, on 2 June, told the House of Representatives that the government will not dip any further into the surplus to fund the new public housing measure in his GST deal with the Democrats? I believe he also confirmed today in question time that the government is not engaging in additional claims for housing from the states. Can the minister explain the difference between the answer she has provided to the Senate and the answer provided by the Treasurer?5922Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think it is a question of the timing of when each was announced. The $269 million was announced before 2 June.59225922Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. The coalition government's establishment of the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust has assisted in restoring and enhancing our land and water resources. What are the additional benefits for the environment following the further privatisation of 16.6 per cent of Telstra?5922Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is another win for the environment because a further $250 million will be invested by this government in remedial work and also in putting in place processes designed to avoid mistakes that have been made in the past. The Natural Heritage Trust is the largest investment in our natural environment, our natural assets, in the history of this country. The Howard government is very proud of it. The amount of $1.25 billion is now to be topped up with another quarter of a billion dollars in a way that no previous government has ever invested our capital. If the sale of two tranches of one capital asset, which is what we are talking about—a telecommunications company—can be sold and in part deliver this fantastic environmental outcome, it is a further good reason for that sale.One thing that particularly pleases me about the Natural Heritage Trust, which also draws a contrast between now and the way that the conservation groups practised in the past, is the way in which we are able to support the community on the ground in rectifying its own mistakes, in remedying the damage that has been done. So rather than governments just preaching, or conservation groups just protesting under the Bob Brown banner, what we now have are so many community organisations going out there and remedying the mistakes that have been made.In fact, under the Natural Heritage Trust in just over two years we have already spent half a billion dollars which has supported more than 6,500 individual projects around Australia. That is very different from the way in which this country approached its environmental problems in the past. So yes, I am pleased that out of the sale of a second tranche of Telstra we will be able to make another substantial capital investment in our natural resource base. We have set up the Natural Heritage Trust, we have invested $1.25 billion, we now have another quarter of a billion, we have negotiated and agreed the arrangements with the states—for Senator Bolkus's benefit—through which most of these programs can be delivered, we set up the advisory group at the advice of the Senate to oversee the development, under Sir James Hardy, of the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee, and we have established the community based state and local assessment bodies that can give us the best advice as to how the money can be spent on the ground to give the best outcomes for each and every dollar.I take the opportunity to give particular credit to the over 4,000 Landcare groups and other community based environment groups that are doing all this hard work on the ground. They are not launching themselves on the Prime Minister's car as a protest because they are too busy out there pulling weeds, planting trees and repairing damage that has been done. How often has Senator Bob Brown been out there pulling the weeds and planting the trees? Never. He is too busy protesting. The real environmental movement has moved on from the days of confrontation to delivering better outcomes on the ground. Anyone who wants to join that partnership with government is welcome to do so. It is a pity that Bob Brown and the remnants of his environmental—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Senator Bob Brown to you.BH4Senator HILL—Senator Bob Brown—I sometimes wonder, I have to say—and the remnants of his environmental movement are not prepared to do so as well. How are we spending the money? We will invest $430 million in native vegetation and farm forestry; $380 million will be invested in our inland waters and wetlands. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous5923592315:02:005923Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Yesterday I took some questions on notice from Senator Faulkner to the Minister for Defence. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SENATOR FAULKNER, asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, on 21 June 1999:Is the Minister aware that Mr Entsch has stated that Mr Rod Corey, the head of the Defence Estate Organisation, `unwittingly misled' the Senate estimates committee the week before last? Can the minister inform the Senate in what respect Mr Corey allegedly unwittingly misled the Senate? What action has the minister taken, as the minister in the chair at the estimates hearing, to ensure that the public record is corrected at the earliest opportunity.SENATOR NEWMAN—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In view of the media comments attributed to Mr Entsch, it is presumed that the Senator's question relates to the issues of whether or not written quotations were received and whether Boral had been contacted for the works at RAAF Base Scherger.Based on the information available to Mr Corey at the time of the Senate Legislative Hearings on 8 June 1999, it was his understanding that written quotes were not obtained, Defence had received a verbal quote from Cape York Concrete and Defence had only referred to a current Boral price list.It is now apparent that both Boral and Cape York Concrete were contacted on 9 March 1999 by Sergeant Goddard. As a consequence, Cape York Concrete provided a written quote and Sergeant Goddard concluded from Boral's verbal response that it was uninterested in the project.On 24 March 1999, Flight Sergeant Jones took over from Sergeant Goddard. Additional quantities of concrete were required for the works and Flight Sergeant Jones approached Cape York Concrete for a revised quote. Flight Sergeant Jones did not approach Boral given its earlier response as conveyed by Sergeant Goddard. A written revised quote was received from Cape York Concrete on 31 March 1999.Mr Corey did not knowingly mislead the committee. His evidence was based on the best information available and this is reflected in his responses to the Senator. Additional information provided to the Senator on 21 June 1999 to Questions on Notice from the committee should clarify the outstanding issues.592315:02:005923Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—During question time I said that I would call for a copy of the Prime Minister's ministerial guidelines and answer the question asked by Senator Faulkner. The relevant provision, which is self-explanatory, states:Ministers are required to resign directorships in public companies and may retain directorships in private companies only if such company operates, for example, a family farm, business or portfolio of investments, and if retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the minister's public duty (eg, a minister should question the retention of a directorship in a company in which share holdings extend beyond the minister's own family). That might not have been the answer Senator Faulkner wanted, but that is the guideline as laid down by the Prime Minister.I want to add one point to the answer I gave to Senator Reynolds. I have been reminded that we, being the government, supported the attendance of two CSIRO scientists at a conference on acid sulfate soils in the Cairns region and that we also had an officer from Environment Australia attend that conference.592415:05:005924Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to questions without notice asked by Senators Faulkner, Cook, Ray and Reynolds today, relating to the financial interests of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Mr Entsch).I thought it might be useful to provide some brief background to the questions which were asked of the minister in question time today, given that the government ministers seem particularly ignorant about these matters. The truth is that Mr Entsch bought two lots of land at Koombal Park on East Trinity Inlet, jointly with his wife—that is, 400 metres up the road from a 700 hectare block that the British banking company Natwest hopes to develop. Although he bought the land for $26,000, the unimproved capital value of Mr Entsch's recent acquisitions was $195,000 in October 1996.In September 1998, the Cairns City Council changed the East Trinity development control plan to relax planning controls along the East Trinity foreshore, giving this Natwest plan a very new lease of life. The proposal currently has a couple of stumbling blocks which are lack of access—you can only get there by water taxi or by a round-about road—and the severe acid sulfate leaching and other soil toxicity problems that have been raised in question time today.If the Natwest development goes ahead, it will house up to 20,000 residents and include 15,000 square metres of retail. In time, it will also necessitate the building of a bridge between the Cairns CBD and the new suburb opposite, further adding to the value of Mr Entsch's holdings. What the opposition is concentrating on is what occurred after the election last year because Mr Entsch became Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. On 2 April this year, in that capacity, Mr Entsch launched a CSIRO study into acid sulfate on the Natwest site and told the Courier-Mail:The only economically viable option might be to allow Natwest to go ahead with its development plans.That is in the paper. The report gives another option. It says:It's likely that viable management strategies are available for rehabilitation, including reflooding.Then you have the workshop—perhaps Senator Hill had officers there. Who knows? There was a workshop on the acid sulfate problem, sponsored by Mr Entsch, using the services of CSIRO to discuss an initial site investigation that they had carried out on the Natwest site and ways of dealing with the acid sulfate soil problem, which we acknowledge is a serious issue. Mr Entsch told the Cairns Post on 20 May this year that the Commonwealth is sponsoring further monitoring by CSIRO and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in Senator Hill's portfolio.The stench of Entsch just gets worse and worse. There is nothing wrong with a local member pushing for economic development in his electorate—we know that every local member does that. But when a local member is the parliamentary secretary and can use the good offices of his own portfolio organisation—that is, CSIRO—to look into the potential of East Trinity, and when that same parliamentary secretary has investment properties up the road which depend on the development happening, we say that is not just an altruistic concern of a local member. We have concerns that it is a capital-C conflict of interest. Mr Entsch is obviously desperately trying to find a way to ameliorate the acid sulfate soils problem using CSIRO, desperately trying to promote the NatWest project which will inevitably lead to a bridge bringing his property within a few minutes drive from Cairns. But the Prime Minister, as weak as he is, as incapable as he is of exercising moral authority, should deliver to the Australian public what everyone has been waiting for: some leadership. Mr Entsch must be stripped of his parliamentary secretaryship this afternoon. (Time expired)15:10:005925Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I appreciate that it must be very difficult for this opposition at the moment. Here we have Australia in an economic circumstance where it is the envy of the world. Having inherited a deficit of over $10 billion, in just three years this Howard government has turned the economy to prosperity, prosperity particularly envied within our region. This prosperity has been achieved through good policies of soundly restraining expenditure, reforming industrial relations laws, privatising assets that are no longer appropriate in public hands and using the money to repay debt, keeping down interest rates—the lowest level in 30 years—keeping down inflation to a stable and historically low level, giving the opportunity for Australians to prosper and, in particular, bringing the unemployment rate down to the lowest level it had been before we had the recession that was inflicted upon us deliberately by the former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Keating.The government is delivering so many benefits to the community as a whole, the latest of which we trust will be implemented in the next few days, and that is fantastic tax reform for this country. That tax reform will finally deliver to us a contemporary taxation system with $12 billion of reductions of income tax to put in place even more incentives for small business to grow, to invest and to provide jobs. It will give particular benefit to exporters to address the current account difficulties which Senator Cook reminds us of so often and get rid of the wholesale sales tax that is so inefficient and cumbersome and, with all the other benefits, get rid of the poverty trap so that all Australians can benefit in that way. The tax reform will provide a capital base from which governments in the future can deliver the services that are reason ably required for Australians, whether they be health, education or any such fields.In such circumstances as these, one can understand why an opposition would be desperate to find some issue that is irrelevant to the rest of Australia but on which they hope they can get a headline or two. We saw that demonstrated in the stunt from Senator Faulkner in his presentation a moment ago. We all picked the grab that he hopes will be the one on the television tonight.He tried to trick me—all right, I suppose that is part of the game during question time—on what the rules are that the Prime Minister has set down in relation to directors. He got that wrong and I suspect he has got a lot of other things wrong as well. Okay, Mr Entsch, we concede, made a mistake and did not list his directorships—not a big mistake, because he had actually listed his shareholdings. We know that Labor members on the other side made the same mistake. I did not hear Senator Cook accuse them of using the dopey defence. And when Senator Richardson—former minister in this place—forgot that he was a member of a board that ran a radio station, Senator Cook did not come in here and say, `He is entitled to the dopey defence.' Of course, there is one set of rules for the coalition and another set of rules for the Labor Party.Nothing has been demonstrated against Mr Entsch that would suggest in any way that there has been improper behaviour on his part. He made a mistake. He owned up to the mistake. The Prime Minister accepted the explanation, because it was a reasonable explanation in the circumstancesWhat this opposition ought to do, instead of trawling in the gutter in this way, is to start looking at some questions of policy, to start organising itself into an opposition that might one day be capable of governing again, to set itself some goals to do better than when it was last in government, to develop its policies, to get some new blood on the frontbench, and give some of the newcomers a go, because I am sure they could do better than the tired lot that sit on the front bench in this place. When that starts to happen—and I do not care whether it is the new way, the second way or the third way: it is good to see there are a couple of backbenchers wanting to make a difference, and it is a pity that the leadership of the Labor Party, including Senator Cook, cannot pick up the challenge as well—then the Labor Party will start to be relevant, and then the Australian people will see that they are at least entitled to consideration. But whilst they just continue trawling in the gutter on irrelevancies they will not be seen as relevant. (Time expired)15:15:005926Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Imagine that last contribution. Imagine that Senator Hill was able to speak for five minutes without breath. What a transformation from half an hour ago to now. He could not answer anything at question time. He would not even take it on notice, but eventually he did—`I'll go and make inquiries.' Suddenly, half an hour later, he is voluble. But what he is doing is defending Mr Entsch on the first set of charges. Today there is a new set of charges, so he is playing catch-up.If Senator Hill wants to lecture us on our behaviour in this place, one of the crucial responsibilities for opposition is to hold governments accountable. The main reason that Senator Coonan and everyone else in the Howard government want to change the Senate rules is not about legislation—they can usually stitch up a sleazy deal with a few opportunists; that is never hard. They hate the scrutiny. They hate being held accountable.In this case, we are entitled to ask questions about Mr Entsch's behaviour. We are entitled to ask why, when he was bringing down that CSIRO report, he put that fantastic spin on it. This is a serious report; it goes to the problems of the East Trinity area. Who other than Mr Entsch would have the gall to say that the only way you solve those problems is to put on a massive development; that 13 million cubic feet of topsoil was needed to raise it all by about four feet; and that a bridge be put straight across to the CBD of Cairns. In spite of the fact of all the defence facilities and the oil and sugar facilities further on, you are going to whack a bridge right across it. Mr Entsch is into that. He was referred to in the other place today as the Bob Jelly of the north. 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please do not reflect upon a member.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—This is SeaChange all over again; this is reality reflecting fiction. What we have, obviously without the knowledge of his senior minister Senator Minchin, is this particular parliamentary secretary trying to use a proper scientific report to get this massive development going. What is the advantage to him? His property is up the road. Once the bridge goes in and once the development starts there, his property is going to go through the roof.Ask yourself how he got it so cheap—most people know. Most people know what the auction process was on this occasion. Sure, he did buy the land before he went on the front bench, and so buying the land is legitimate; but he cannot use his front bench position to then enrich himself. He is the one that convenes the workshop on the area. Guess what: after the workshop, they have a bus that does a tour of all the development area. I do not know if they stop at the ex-caravan park that Mr Entsch owns, but a lot of people get on the bus. Most of the Queensland government people do not get on the bus, because they are awake-up. They know that something stinks about this particular issue, and so they do not get on it.The answers that we have received today, admittedly without notice, shed no light on this at all. What Senator Hill did today was defend his past crimes, not his current ones. This is the second strike and, if anyone thinks there will not be a third strike, do not bother. One of my pleas is to those people in North Queensland: stop sending us information on Mr Entsch. We cannot deal with it all at the moment. It is flooding in, and it shows Mr Entsch as an unscrupulous businessman in the north of Queensland.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please do not reflect upon a member of the other house.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Madam Deputy President, let me say that the information coming in from North Queensland does not do Mr Entsch any credit in any of the business dealings he has been involved in. The Senate and the other place have only been told about one-tenth of it so far. Many other issues are now emerging as to his behaviour. Sure, I do not mind, I do not take offence when Mr Entsch refers to us on this side as `sewer rats', but I tell you what: when this is all over, it will be Sewer Rats 10, Mr Entsch nil. If you have got form like he has got form, you will be held accountable.No amount of bluster and bluff by Senator Hill is going to stop us from pursuing these issues—and the Prime Minister on them. The Prime Minister simply will not enforce any code of conduct whatsoever. It is just the Wild West rules that are being applied here. Mr Howard is too weak an individual to actually discipline people such as Mr Entsch that misuse their position. (Time expired)15:20:005927Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—The only thing that I could agree with in relation to the contributions from Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray is the self-description of Senator Ray as a sewer rat.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator! I have asked other senators not to reflect upon other members, so please do not continue this reflection.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam Deputy President, I trust you will ensure that that is the course that you adopt with those on the other side. Last night, we had a fantastic result in relation to the further 16.6 per cent sale of Telstra. What do the Labor Party do in response? Devoid of any alternative policies for this country, they jump straight back into the gutter where they wallow, thinking that somehow, if they dredge around enough, they might be able to convince the Australian people that they ought to be entitled to govern this nation again.Of course, whenever they jump back into the gutter and trawl around, the thing they cannot overcome is the political corpse of the former leader, Mr Keating. If ever there was a conflict of interest in this nation, it was while Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray sat around the cabinet table, undoubtedly fully aware of Mr Keating's outrageous involvement in a piggery and his involvement with the Indonesian contact—with not a word from those two senior cabinets ministers in relation to Mr Keating not even disclosing his pecuniary interest in the matter.At least Mr Entsch put it on the table for everyone to see that he had a pecuniary interest. Where was Mr Keating's declaration of a pecuniary interest in relation to the piggery? In fact, he lied to the parliament. He denied his involvement, and it has now been revealed that in fact he did have such an involvement and such a pecuniary interest. These people opposite still idolise Mr Keating as supposedly a great leader of this country. Well, if you want to apply some sort of standard to the parliamentary secretary Mr Entsch, why is it that you did not even think about applying that standard to your former leader? Why don't you stand up and have some credibility and say, `We now agree that Mr Keating lied. He should have disclosed his interest in the piggery'?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: that is an unparliamentary reflection.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—He is no longer a member of the parliament.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I will rule on the point of order. I do not need any help, Senator Abetz.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Deputy President, my point of order is that that is an unparliamentary reflection on a distinguished member of this parliament.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—He is no longer a member of parliament, therefore there is no point of order.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—The Australian people, through that intervention by Senator Cook, have yet again witnessed how the Labor Party will jump to Mr Keating's defence. Senator Cook, of course, was a senior minister of that government sitting around the cabinet table knowing about Mr Keating's piggery involvement and getting involved with Indonesia.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You're the liar.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, will you please withdraw that.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Withdrawn.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—If he did not know about the piggery involvement, it indicates that the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Keating, made no declaration whatsoever. Those in the Labor Party, those opposite, have the choice now to let us know whether they knew about the financial interests of their former Prime Minister. If you did, you sat here in guilty silence all along knowing that the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, was lying to the parliament and you did not raise one word of objection to it. Where does that leave those opposite? Without any feathers to fly with in this debate. But, more tragically for the Australian people, you have no policies to fly with either.That is why question time after question time you waste the time of this parliament with motions to take note of answers. You waste the time of this parliament in trawling through the gutter because you have no policy positions to put before the Australian people. You seek to regain office by besmirching people rather than coming forward with good, sound policies. The challenge for people like Senator Ray, Senator Faulkner and indeed Senator Cook is not to trawl through the gutter. I suggest to Senator Cook that in his contribution he talk about policy and how he would like to improve the economic wellbeing of this nation.15:25:005928Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I will not be provoked by Senator Eric Abetz in his smearing of a distinguished Prime Minister of Australia in order to try to deflect parliamentary attention from his colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Mr Warren Entsch, and his alleged improper behaviour and certainly his proven failure to comply with the Prime Minister's code of conduct. Before the last election, the Prime Minister said he was going to introduce into Australia a higher level of public probity. The Prime Minister broke down his own standards time after time after time as more and more members of his own frontbench were caught in contravention of the terms of that code of conduct—in contravention of its explicit terms as well as the spirit of that code of conduct.In the case of Mr Warren Entsch, what has been the defence? The defence for Mr Entsch has again been articulated today by the Leader of the Government in this chamber, Senator Hill, when he said that Mr Entsch made a mistake in filling out his forms, that he inadvertently filled out his forms improperly. What is this person who cannot fill out a form in which he is supposed to set out his pecuniary interests? This person is the parliamentary secretary to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, a central parliamentary department in the running of this nation. He is someone who is charged with overseeing industry policy for all industry in Australia, someone charged with working with the minister helping to deliver outcomes for the science community of Australia and someone with a view on resources and resource development of Australia.The defence for Mr Entsch is that he cannot fill out a parliamentary form. This is the dopey defence: he was too damned dumb to be able to do it right. If he is not guilty of being, in this case, misleading, he is guilty of being dopey and he should not be occupying a high office in this parliament and discharging responsibilities on behalf of Australian taxpayers, because he has not got the native cunning just to know where to put his name and how to write down the companies for which he is an owner or shareholder.Senator Ray said that he is very much like Bob Jelly, the mayor of Pearl Bay in the TV series SeaChange. I remind the chamber that by ironic coincidence the actor who plays Bob Jelly in SeaChange is John Howard. But the Prime Minister, John Howard, who is a different person from that actor, has in fact acted away from his own standard of conduct. Let me quote from the Melbourne Sunday Age of 13 June, just last weekend. An article by Shaun Carney, the political correspondence for the Melbourne Sunday Age, is headed `Howard's code is cracked.' He begins:So now we know. Unless a frontbencher in the Howard Government is, say, caught on video sticking up a 7-eleven, perhaps sporting a black-and-white striped T-shirt and black mask in the style of the McDonald's hamburglar just for effect, resignation is out of the question. Sounds ludicrous, of course, but so does virtually everything the Government has said and done in its defence of parliamentary secretary Warren Entsch.The next paragraph reads:The case against Entsch, half-owner of Cape York Concrete, which won a $175,000 contract with the Defence Department in far north Queensland is open and shut. By failing to disclose his directorship of the company and two others, he breached the Prime Minister's code of conduct, plain and simple.Plain and simple, Madam Deputy President, he breached it, but will the Prime Minister defend his own code of conduct? Will he demand satisfaction? Will he sack his parliamentary secretary? No, he has defended him. Therefore, he has devalued that code of conduct, devalued integrity in public office, devalued probity on behalf of frontbenchers in his own government, and devalued as a consequence the standing of his government and the institution of this parliament. There is now only one way out for the Prime Minister, in view of the disclosures on the Trinity Bay fiasco adduced in the questioning in question time today where Mr Entsch is a compliant player in providing approval for a development he has a financial interest in. (Time expired)15:30:005929McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—As my colleague Senator Calvert, the Government Whip, will attest, we know only too well—having served in coalition for 13 years in opposition, long and cold as it was—that these moments of personal attack upon a frontbencher and the chance perhaps to get a scalp are great moments of politics. They get your own side excited, they even get the media excited, and they sustain your troops through those long years in opposition. We know that only too well.But the opposition have to ask themselves: are the likes of Senators Cook, Ray and Faulkner going to get them into government? Is this issue really cutting it out there in the public? The answer to both is no. Is there any substitute for policy? The answer is no. So, in the final analysis, the opposition—if they want to get into government; if they want to start making inroads into this government's credibility—ought to start on the policy front, because this week alone is going to be a momentous week for the government.Last night we passed the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , to sell 49 per cent of Telstra, and with that came a $1 billion package for rural and regional areas. Later on this week, or perhaps early next week, we will be passing the most significant tax change in this country—since Federation, ever. We have done it through a very tortuous path and with agreement with the Democrats, with the opposition completely out of the play. With that tax change we will start to reduce the former Labor government's debt. Both are major reforms within one week. And what is the opposition doing? What is their target? What is their focus for the whole week? An attack on a frontbencher in the hope of getting a spurious scalp.They are attempting to establish that the standards in this parliament have lowered. When we came into government, they were never so low. In fact, the previous government as a whole—and none less than Senator Cook—were lying to the Australian public.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Deputy President—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, if you are going to take a point of order, you should be on your feet to do so.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Deputy President, I am on my feet. I think the senator used an unparliamentary term. He should promptly withdraw it and observe the decorum of the chamber.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I did not hear whether you did, Senator McGauran. If you did use an unparliamentary term, withdraw it, please.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I do wish to withdraw it. I tried to save myself at the last moment. The previous government lied to the Australian people in relation to budget matters, and Senator Cook was part of that government. No less, they went to the election saying that they had a surplus, when they did not. We had to introduce a Charter of Budget Honesty, which is now recognised throughout the world. In political legend and political lexicon, there was the sports rorts affair—the whiteboard affair. You cannot go to a political meeting where that is not made fun of and a joke is not raised in that particular area. We had a Prime Minister who could not fill in his own tax form on two occasions. So when it comes to establishing parliamentary standards, I would say the parliamentary standards have well and truly been lifted.In relation to Mr Entsch, you have to look at the core issues of concern. Did he use his position to influence? The answer to that is no. Did he gain financially? The answer to that is no. Were the proper tender procedures undertaken by the defence forces? The answer to that is yes. Was there any conflict of interest with his particular portfolio? The answer to that is no. Where is the Labor Party on the High Court constitutional issue? They seem to have backed off from that at 1,000 miles an hour; it is no longer raised. Are you going to take Mr Entsch to the High Court? That is no longer an issue.They have scooted around looking for something else against Mr Entsch. The reason for that is there is only one case that they can use as precedent back in 1975—the Webster case, which happened to be about a former National Party senator. It is quite obvious how the High Court would interpret that. It wouldn't interpret on a narrow basis.It has to be reasonably established that there was knowledge, there was involvement and there was remuneration. In other words, you have to use a commonsense approach, and that is why the Labor Party have backed off in relation to the High Court and constitutional questions. That is why they are ferreting around looking for other issues in relation to Mr Entsch. The truth of the matter is that the code of conduct cannot be so threadbare as to not include people who come into this parliament with business acumen and business background.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Condolences5930593010000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 9 June 1999 of Aubrey William George Luck, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Darwin from 1951 to 1955 and the division of Braddon from 1955 to 1958.593010001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:5930105DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 105 citizens)593075DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned call on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the current regulations relating to food content are retained by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority and that adequate food labelling is introduced which allows the Australian community to make a real choice when it comes to the purchase and consumption of food.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support legislation which will ensure that all processed food products sold in Australia be fully labelled. This labelling must include:all additivespercentage of ingredientsnutritional informationcountry of originfood derived from genetically engineered organismsSenator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 75 citizens)Petitions received.Notices59315931Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the first statement on genetically-modified organisms by a major medical organisation, the British Medical Association's report, The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health , launched on 18 May 1999;(b) recognises the association's concerns regarding the effects of genetically-modified foods on human health and the environment; and(c) endorses the association's recommendations, including: (i) an open-ended moratorium on the commercial planting of genetically-modified crops until there is scientific consensus on the safety of such crops, (ii) detailed research on allergic reactions to genetically-modified products and the cumulative effect of genetically-modified organisms and transgenic DNA in the environment and food chain, (iii) the segregation at source, identification and traceability of all genetically-modified products, (iv) the provision of satisfactory evidence by biotechnology companies that genetically-modified crops will not increase agricultural chemical use, and (v) an inter-governmental consultation to review the World Trade Agreement to ensure that governments rather than companies determine whether countries accept, with or without restriction, the importation and use of genetically-modified seeds, plants or foods.Senator Crane to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the 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 29 June 1999.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the development of Hinchinbrook Channel be extended to 24 August 1999. Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the War Crimes Act 1945. War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999 .Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to validate certain decisions made, and acts and things done, under Part XVA of the Customs Act 1901. Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999 .Senator Hill to move, on the next day of sitting:(contingent on the expiration of time for the consideration of a bill under standing order 142)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent non-government amendments being put and determined.(contingent on A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Tax Bill 1998 and 26 related bills being called on)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the moving in committee of the whole of an amendment which is the same in substance as an amendment already negatived by the committee or which is inconsistent with an amendment already agreed to by the committee.5931Items of business were postponed as follows—General business notice of motion No. 144 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the 50th anniversary of the Chinese invasion of Tibet, postponed till 12 August 1999.General business notice of motion No. 147 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to human right abuses in China and Tibet, postponed till 12 August 1999.General business notice of motion No. 233 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, relating to global capitalism, postponed till 23 June 1999.Business of the Senate order of the day No. 2, relating to the proposed reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 29 June 1999. Committees593259325932Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, in respect of the 1999-2000 budget estimates, be extended to 24 June 1999.Personal Explanations593215:37:005932Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.Leave granted.PF4Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTON—I thank the Senate. An article headed `Rank outsider' appeared in the Weekend Australian of 19 and 20 June 1999. Because this piece of pure vitriol may become the subject of legal proceedings I do not intend to comment on it at this stage, apart from one particular matter. One part of the article read as follows:Cheryl Kernot came to Canberra in 1990, Queenslander to Queenslander, Colston invited her to his office. "Mal was so nice to her," recalls Andrew Hillard, a research officer on Colston's staff. "I thought: `This is great. Even though she's a Democrat, at least he's trying to strike some kind of allegiance with her.' Which he was. There was a vote coming up for the Deputy President of the Senate, which he desperately wanted. But as soon as she walked out the door, Mal just turned to me and said: `F. . . ing pretentious bitch.'"That is the end of the quote. Two particular aspects of this excerpt are false. One of these is the comment that I was alleged to have made; I do not use language of this type. The remark is a figment of Andrew Hillard's vivid imagination. The second is that the meeting never occurred. I did not invite the then Senator Kernot to my office, nor did she call on me so that I could be `so nice to her' or `strike some kind of allegiance with her'.I am not certain whether Mr Hillard concocts stories such as this one because I revealed at an Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing why I dismissed him as an employee or because he is a pathological liar. Perhaps both reasons are appropriate. To recap: the invitation was not extended, the meeting did not occur, no comment was made about the then Senator Kernot and I do not use language of the type that was alleged.Bills5932s2175932Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to provide for the division of States into Wards for the purpose of choosing senators, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.593215:40:005932Colston, Sen MalcolmSenator COLSTONPF4QLDIND00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The opposition is happy to grant leave to table the explanatory memorandum to the bill and, in the normal course of events, will also be willing to grant leave for the second reading speech to be incorporated. I just want to be satisfied that the government has seen the second reading speech and that it does relate to the bill. If that is the case, and I can be assured of that, then leave will be granted.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?5932Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I have indicated, Madam Deputy President, that the opposition is happy to grant leave for the explanatory memorandum to be tabled. I am trying to get clarity, but we really need the attention of the government here.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand, Senator Faulkner.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Shall I recap for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think that might be helpful.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I have indicated through you, Madam Deputy President, to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that, in relation to the Electoral Amendment (Senate Elections) Bill 1999 , the opposition is willing to grant leave for the explanatory memorandum to be tabled. Leave has been sought for the second reading speech to be incorporated in Hansard , and I have indicated on behalf of the opposition that I do not have a problem with that as long as the government can assure me that the second reading speech relates to the bill, not to other extraneous matters. In that circumstance, I am more than happy to grant leave.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would it be the wish of the parliament to defer?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—No. If Senator Ian Campbell can give me an extra commitment in that regard—15:43:005933Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I regard it as unusual. I know the normal protocol is that one would want to look at a document before it was tabled. The government obviously benefits greatly, and I guess the chamber does, from having most of its second reading speeches incorporated. We welcome the indulgence of the Senate in ensuring that literally hundreds of second reading speeches are incorporated by ministers in any given year. We normally always extend that courtesy to people introducing second reading bills. I am happy if Senator Faulkner thinks it is appro priate that we look at the speech and then give him an assurance that it relates to the bill.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I just want to be assured that there are no extraneous matters.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I do understand where you are coming from, and I am happy to proceed on that basis. So I guess leave is granted.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I will put it two ways: is leave granted for the explanatory memorandum to be tabled?Leave granted.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for the second reading speech to be incorporated?15:44:005933Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I again seek leave to make a brief statement.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I do not particularly wish to refuse leave, which means that the senator has to read the speech into Hansard . I merely want to be assured, by whatever mechanism you care to invoke, that the speech relates to the bill—and only to the bill—and that is fine; leave will be granted. But I want to be sure that there are not extraneous issues being canvassed in the speech.An honourable senator interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—It is not my name I am concerned about. I couldn't give a damn what he said about me.PF4COLSTONSenator Colston—I was going to indicate that I would read the speech, but Senator Campbell might have some different message.15:45:005933Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I have now had a chance to peruse the speech, and I am quite confident that the speech relates to the bill. It is a relatively short speech and, on my quick reading of the speech, it looks to be all in order. I would be very happy to grant leave and can give that assurance to opposition senators.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for the incorporation of the second reading speech?Leave granted.The speech read as follows—We are fast approaching the centenary of the establishment of our Federal Parliament. Just as the last decade of the 19th century witnessed impassioned debate on the matters concerning the constitution and the nature of the two houses in the soon-to-be Federal Parliament, so too do we witness renewed debate on these issues as the 20th century draws to a close. But the similarity in the topics is only superficial; for the nature of the discussion is as different and divergent as the century or so that has passed between.In the 1890s, our Constitutional debate was not about becoming a republic or remaining a constitutional monarchy. It was about turning a group of disparate colonies into a working federation. The debate over the form of the Senate at the time was closely linked to what our forebears apparently envisaged the role of the states in that federation would be. That debate culminated in a limiting of the powers of the larger colonies, New South Wales and Victoria, and gave the colonies equal status as States of the Commonwealth. If we fast-forward to the late 1990s, we find debate about power is still with us, only this time it is about the powers of minor parties and independents. This bill will allow the Senate, the House of Representatives and the wider community to consider the issues involved. The bill provides for the division of States into Wards for the purpose of choosing senators. It will limit the opportunity for minor party members and independents to exercise power far beyond the extent of their electoral support.I have been considering the issues in this bill for some time now—that it corresponds with contemporary public debate on the role of the Senate is merely coincidental. The contentious issues in the current debate include the question of a "mandate", "fair representation" and what it means to review government legislation. Reference is still made to the importance of a "states' house" as the founding fathers would have intended the Senate to be versus the current existence of a partisan approach to the review of legislation proposed by the Government in the House of Representatives. While the presence of independent senators from time to time has given us a glimpse of how the Senate could work in favour of specific states—and perhaps to the detriment of others—the Senate now is party-based and it is this reality with which we must deal. Thus the division of States into Wards as proposed by this bill will more accurately reflect the contemporary mechanisms of this House—it merely seeks to formalise and acknowledge what, in actual fact, is really happening in our "House of Review".In the context of the present debate, several suggestions have been canvassed regarding the possible electoral system on which the Senate is based. I consider that this bill is a concrete step towards the pursuit of Senate reform. I will outline the main features of this bill.Section 7 of the Constitution states, among other things, that "The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate." The parliament has not otherwise provided and senators are therefore chosen by the people of the various States—and now the Territories—each voting as one electorate.The Electoral Amendment (Senate Elections) Bill 1999 proposes to alter the manner in which senators are elected to the Senate. Rather than represent the State as one electorate, the bill provides that each of the states is to be divided into six Wards, each ward having two representatives in the Senate. The representatives will still be regarded as Senators for the particular State in which their Wards exist. At a periodical half senate election, each Ward would return one senator for that State while at a Senate election following a dissolution, each Ward would return two senators. The bill does not alter the method of selection of Territory senators. At a Senate election following a dissolution, senators would be chosen using the current system of proportional representation, but at a half-senate election preferential voting, as currently used for House of Representatives elections, would be relied upon. It is proposed that ticket voting be retained for both types of elections in order to minimise the possibility of informal votes where a large number of candidates is involved.The bill also makes consequential changes to the administration of the electoral system. The Australian Electoral officer in each State retains primary responsibility for administration of the Ward system, including the establishment and maintenance of separate Ward rolls. The Australian Electoral Officer is empowered to make whatever arrangements are necessary to maintain the rolls. It is envisaged that this would involve administrative arrangements with the divisional Returning Officers to ensure that information acquired by DROs in the course of their maintenance of divisional rolls is passed on to the Australian Electoral Officer for corresponding action in relation to the Ward rolls. The bill also provides for some modifications to the existing forms for nomination for the Senate.As the expansion of the administrative structure required to administer the Ward system is untested, the bill provides that the establishment, maintenance and use of Ward rolls will be reviewed by the Australian Electoral Commission five years after the commencement of the act and a report of the review will be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament.The bill also provides for transitional arrangements. Senators holding office at the commencement of the act will continue to represent their States as a whole for the remainder of their terms of office. It will be necessary for the initial distribution of each State into Wards to be undertaken as a first step to implementing the system. If a Senate election is held before a buffer period of twenty-one days has elapsed after this distribution process is completed, the transitional provisions provide that senators will be elected in accordance with the current system. Any casual vacancies occurring in relation to the places held by senators representing States as a whole would be filled on the same basis.There is some argument that section 15 of the Constitution, as changed by the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977, entrenches direct elections of senators by the people of a state as a whole. It is not entirely clear whether section 15 precludes the appointment of a person by a State Parliament to represent a Ward, as opposed to the State as a whole. To safeguard against this possibility, item 17 of the bill provides that a senator appointed to a casual vacancy in a State is deemed to represent the Ward in respect of which the vacancy arose, for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.Section 13 of the Constitution requires the Senate to decide who shall be "long term" and "short term" senators following a dissolution of the Senate. In part, that section provides that "the Senate shall divide the Senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service".The decision of which Senators are to be "long term" and "short term" is the untrammelled right of the Senate. It is expected, however, that should the proposed legislation in this bill be passed, in any future dissolution of the Senate, the new Senate would choose one senator from each Ward to be a senator of the first class and the other senator of that Ward to be a member of the second class.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned. Miscellaneous593515:46:005935Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 237, standing in my name for today and relating to an order for production of documents, be taken as a formal motion and, in doing that, indicate that, after discussions with the Manager of Government Business, I will be moving it in amended form.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is no objection.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I seek leave to amend the return date on the motion from after question time tomorrow to midday on Friday, 25 June.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—My motion will now read:That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), no later than midday on Friday, 25 June 1999, the following documents:(a) `Analysis of the impact of the proposed taxation changes on alternative fuel use and the alternative fuel market', prepared by the Bureau of Transport Economics; and(b) any other modelling commissioned by the Government of the environmental impacts of the goods and services legislation as introduced or as proposed to be amended.15:47:005935Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—It is obviously not our call here—we do not have a majority of senators—but I do understand there might be a majority for the proposition that the documents be tabled by no later than the commencement of the debate on the relevant bills, which are the so-called diesel fuel bills or whatever you want to call them, and the government would not oppose the motion if it were amended in those terms.15:48:005935Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—I would still prefer to stick to the return date that I mentioned, because we would of course like some time to look at that documentation before the debate starts.15:48:005936Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I would just like clarification—through you, Madam Deputy President—from the government that what we are talking about here is the debate on the diesel fuel component of the GST legislation in the parliament as a whole—because the information ought to be available in either chamber. It is going to be a bit late if it only applies here in the Senate, and it would be important to have that information so it can be assessed before the Senate debate gets under way.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being amended in the form outlined by Senator Bolkus? There being no objection, Senator Bolkus, would you like to move your amended motion?15:49:005936Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), no later than midday on Friday, 25 June 1999, the following documents:(a) `Analysis of the impact of the proposed taxation changes on alternative fuel use and the alternative fuel market', prepared by the Bureau of Transport Economics; and(b) any other modelling commissioned by the Government of the environmental impacts of the goods and services legislation as introduced or as proposed to be amended. Question put.15:53:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)28Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.*Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.37Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.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.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M.O'Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Faulkner, J. P. Gibson, B. F.Hutchins, S. Minchin, N. H.O'Brien, K. W. K. Macdonald, I.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous5936Motion (by Senator Cook) put:That the Senate—(a) notes that 24 days after the Government and the Australian Democrats reached agreement on a goods and services tax (GST) deal: (i) the Democrats are reported to have promised to pass the GST by 30 June 1999, (ii) two Democrat Senators, Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja, have vowed to vote against the GST deal in the interests of all Australians, (iii) no GST amendments have yet been tabled by the Government or the Democrats for the scrutiny of the Parliament, (iv) the GST bills are listed for debate in the Senate on 22 June 1999, and (v) there are reports that the Government has made available to the Democrats the revised GST amendments, but has not made them available to other parties; and(b) calls on the Government and the Australian Democrats to immediately make available their GST amendments for appropriate public scrutiny and consideration in sufficient time to enable proper debate.16:01:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)28Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.*Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.42Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. O'Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Faulkner, J. P. Gibson, B. F.Hutchins, S. Minchin, N. H.O'Brien, K. W. K. Macdonald, I.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Miscellaneous593716:04:005937Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—In case there is any misunderstanding, it is the government's intention to table the modelling that has been done, both the BTE modelling and other modelling, in relation to the diesel fuel matter. We intend to table that material before the debate on the diesel bill commences.16:05:005937Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I seek a point of clarification on what the minister has said. I wonder whether Senator Hill could make it clear to the chamber whether he meant that the information would be released by the government before the debate gets under way in the parliament, that is in the other place, the House of Representatives, or here in the Senate.16:06:005937Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I meant in relation to the Senate.Committees59375937593716:06:005937Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I present the 76th report of the committee, entitled Parliamentary privilege—Precedents, procedures and practice in the Australian Senate 1966-1999 , together with a volume of the Clerk's advices to the Committee of Privileges.Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.This present report of the Committee of Privileges is, in effect, a third edition of the committee's report on its operation; the first was presented in 1991 and the second in 1996. The committee understands that considerable use has been made of these two reports, particularly the second, which constituted a compendium of privilege case studies and documents.This edition incorporates and updates all relevant materials contained in the previous two reports and also includes details of and comments on a further 13 reports covering some 20 references. It will be placed on the Internet, and extra copies will be printed for general use and for use in and distribution at seminars for public servants and statutory officials of the Senior Executive Service and above. These seminars are now regularly conducted by the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission, as well as by the Department of the Senate, in response to recommendations made in several committee reports and adopted by the Senate. We hope that the Senate, and others for whom it has been prepared, will find it a short and useful report. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the secretary of the committee, Ms Lynch, and all her staff, who put an enormous amount of effort into this particular document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.5938593816:08:005938Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I present a further submission and supplementary information received by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee in response to the committee's inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] .Miscellaneous59385938593816:08:005938Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I present additional information received by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee in response to the 1998-99 additional estimates hearings.Committees59385938593816:09:005938Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present report No. 21 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, entitled Five treaties tabled on 16 February 1999 , together with the Hansard record and minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, I am delighted to be tabling Report 21, Five Treaties Tabled on 16 February 1999 . This report contains the results of the review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of the following proposed treaties:. a treaty on extradition with South Africa;. a treaty with Sweden on mutual assistance in criminal matters;. an agreement with New Zealand on the status of visiting defence forces; and. two defence agreements with the United States—the first concerning the reciprocal provision of logistic support, services and supplies, and the second concerning communications services.In each case we support the proposed treaty and recommend that binding action be taken.Our comments on the extradition treaty with South Africa represent a continuation of our support for the negotiation of modernised extradition arrangements.The key element of these arrangements is that the country requesting extradition has only to provide the other country with a statement of the conduct of the alleged offences by the accused. This is a far more flexible and effective basis for extradition than the traditional arrangements, which require the provision of material sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case against the accused.It is important to note that the treaty with South Africa, like all modern arrangements, balances this flexibility by allowing the requested country to refuse extradition in circumstances where either the extradition, or the punishment arising from any conviction, would infringe the civil, political or human rights of the accused person. The treaty on mutual assistance in criminal matters with Sweden also represents an improvement to our international network of law and justice arrangements.Mutual assistance treaties play a valuable role in ensuring that law enforcement agencies are able extend their reach beyond national borders. Without such arrangements, the task of investigating and prosecuting trans-border criminal behaviour is complicated immeasurably.The proposal to conclude a status of forces agreement between Australia and New Zealand is another step in maintaining the long-standing and close defence relationship between the two nations.While it can hardly be argued that the agreement is a central plank in our defence relationship, the establishment of a standard scheme for the rights and obligations of visiting forces will secure a firm footing for two of the important elements in a healthy defence relationship—the exchange of personnel and participation in joint exercises.In our view, Australia's national interest is also well served by the two defence agreements with the United States canvassed in our report.The agreement on the reciprocal provision of logistic support, services and supplies (known as the Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreement) is a standard form agreement that the United States Government is seeking to negotiate with all of its major defence partners.The agreement establishes rules for the reciprocal provision of support and services in `combined exercises, deployments, operations and for unforeseen circumstances and exigencies'. The agreement will update an agreement initially signed in 1990, during the Gulf War.The Agreement on Defense Communication Services clarifies the division of responsibility for the provision of on-line communication services between the Australian Defence Force and the United States military. This agreement is substantially the same as the expired 1989 agreement on the same subject and involves an annual expenditure, by Australia, of only $10 000.Both agreements contribute to our broader strategic relationship with the United States and are important to the extent that they clarify our mutual understandings, expectations and requirements.I would like to thank my committee colleagues from both sides of the House, and in the Senate, for their continuing commitment to the work of the Treaties Committee.I commend the report, and its conclusions, to the Senate.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous59395939593916:09:005939Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—With the exception of the Economics Legislation Committee and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, on behalf of the respective chairs I present legislation committee reports on proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 2000, together with the Hansard records of proceedings.Ordered that the reports be printed.Committees59395939593910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats seeking a variation to the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Allison replace Senator Stott Despoja on the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Eduction References Committee for its inquiry into the effectiveness of education and training programs for indigenous Australians.Bills5939r778593916:12:005939O'Chee, Sen BillSenator O'CHEEEU4QLDNP10—On behalf of Senator Ferguson, I present the Economics Legislation Committee report on the provisions of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999 , together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.(Quorum formed)Bills5940r7815940Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.594016:16:005940Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The bill is central to the Government's intention to ensure that funding for programmes aimed at improving the situation of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is distributed on a needs basis. It will allow the Commonwealth Grants Commission to report on the distribution of funding for meeting the needs of indigenous people. It will also further the Government's aim of improving the situation of Australia's indigenous people by ensuring that an independent assessment of their need for services and programmes is undertaken.The intention of the Government in taking this important step in providing a better basis for the distribution of funding for indigenous affairs was announced as a commitment during last year's election campaign. The new approach is designed to increase the confidence that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have in the distribution of funds because it will give them greater assurance that the distribution is based on need.The Commonwealth Grants Commission is a world-renowned agency that has, until now, been restricted to measuring the relative needs of the States and Territories for untied Commonwealth funding, and to advising on the needs of the small Island Territories. Its expertise in assessing the relative needs of different communities has been underutilised and this bill enables it to be asked to examine the needs of indigenous people.The Grants Commission is an independent statutory authority and has always acted with absolute freedom in making its recommendations to Government. During an inquiry into the distribution of resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programmes, it will need to have close contact with the Departments and agencies currently involved in deciding the distribution of funding for those programmes, but it will continue to operate with its traditional degree of independence.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be given opportunities to make both written and oral submissions to the Commission, and to show it the magnitude of their problems. This approach is in line with the Government's commitment to work with ATSIC and the wider indigenous community to develop arrangements to improve the allocation of funding, and to give the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people every chance to discuss their situation with those directly involved in advising the Government.I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) adjourned.Bills5940s1825940Debate resumed.16:16:005940Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Before question time, during the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] , I was saying that the issue of the environment is clearly a national issue, an issue that affects generation after generation and one where we as the present generation must act responsibly. I was saying that the Commonwealth must not roll back the constitutional obligation it has to look after the environment, and I was suggesting that the bill that is before the chamber is deficient in that respect. That proposition is well borne out by the amendments that are to be moved on behalf of the government and that have now been put on the tables of the senators in this place.As you will see, Madam Acting Deputy President, those amendments are many and the package that they are set out in is quite thick. As I go through them, I see such issues raised as whether a person should be guilty of an offence for recklessly taking members of a listed threatened species or community and whether that should be punishable by a term of imprisonment, dealt with by a civil penalty or dealt with by a fine that has a criminal effect. So, just casting my eyes over these amendments, it appears that there is quite a considerable change in the thrust of what this legislation is all about.I see in the amendments that have been put forward that the issue of commercial-in-confidence is dealt with. One of the amendments says that the secretary must not be satisfied `that a part of the report is commercial-in-confidence unless a person demonstrates' that to the secretary, and then it sets out a number of criteria. It is clear that the whole concept of what is proper environmental protection and how that environmental protection should be given expression in legislation is now very much up for reappraisal. I am not sure how much time will be given to this debate but, since there has been this sudden shift not only in the legislation but also in the concept behind the legislation, in my view it is a situation where a lot more time is needed for us to look at the issues that are before us.The legislation is now before us, and we have the bill itself and the massive number of amendments that have been put before us at this late hour. The original concept was that there would be agreements between the Commonwealth and the states to set up regimes whereby different aspects of the environment could be protected, so we have the issue of the Ramsar wetland attended to, the issue of world heritage property attended to, the issue of migratory species dealt with and so on. They are dealt with in the bill itself in a way which is not sufficient because the penalties for people that breach the environmental laws that are going to come into operation if this bill is passed are not salutary enough to get a situation where people adhere to the environmental laws and the environmental spirit of Australia. Hopefully, if we get a good chance to look at these amendments, that may help but it is clear now that the whole basis of this debate has changed.16:22:005941Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My comments today in speaking to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] will specifically concentrate on the impact of the aspects of this legislation and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] on Aboriginal Territorians, especially the traditional owners of Aboriginal freehold land now leased to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. In the Northern Territory this specifically refers to the Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu national parks.This bill is about a withdrawal by the Commonwealth from its environment protection role. This bill is about a withdrawal by the Commonwealth from many of its responsibilities in relation to the environment protection and biodiversity conservation in favour of the states and territories. The Commonwealth has been involved in a large number of areas of environmental protection over many decades. Existing Commonwealth environment protection and conservation legislation covers a wide range of matters, including environmental impact assessment, endangered species, heritage and national parks management, as well as giving effect to various international environmental obligations such as trade in wildlife, ozone layer protection and sea dumping.When one looks at the government's majority finding from the report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the bill that we are now considering, it seems that the government has been fairly dismissive of indigenous concerns. I have to say that I was rather surprised at the response in the government's majority report because a quick look at the transcript of the committee hearings and the various submissions provided to the committee gives an indication of how concerned indigenous people are about the impact of these bills.I met recently with the traditional owners of both the boards of management from the Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu national parks and they have left me in no doubt about the intensity of their concerns. What are those concerns? One thing that was raised time and again was the view of these indigenous people that there has been no real consultation regarding those aspects of the bill which would impact upon them, despite assurances given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, that he would do so. We heard again today his pretence in question time about those so-called consultations. Aboriginal people seem quite confused about why Senator Hill was not prepared to do what he promised to do, and that is talk with them—not to them—in a meaningful way before he proceeded with any plans to do anything that changed the joint management arrangements. Perhaps it is because Senator Hill's idea of consultation differs from that of the traditional owners.Evidence was presented to the inquiry on 17 March this year when it was stated that Senator Hill met with the Kakadu board on 4 April 1996. The inquiry heard that Senator Hill advised the board that any future changes to the joint management arrangements would only be made with the agreement of the traditional owners. Despite requests by the board to be involved in discussions regarding any review of the joint management areas in Kakadu, the Aboriginal owners have told me that Senator Hill has not consulted with them about the proposed changes in any meaningful way. Senator Hill clearly seems to be under the impression that telling people what changes will be imposed upon them amounts to consultation. He is wrong.Key indigenous concerns include: changes to the joint management arrangements; imposition of Northern Territory government representation on the joint boards of management; disregard for Aboriginal culture and intellectual property rights; and the fact that there is no equivalent of section 70 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act in the new bill. Mick Alderson, the chairperson of the Kakadu board of management, speaking at the inquiry hearing in Darwin in March said:Please remember that most of the Kakadu Aboriginal land is private land. We are the landowners, but we are landowners with a difference. We are landowners that have agreed with the people of Australia to share our country with all Australians. This is why we feel offended that this government has tried to change the management structure on our land without talking to us and without us saying yes or no to these changes. It is disrespectful and rude.He also said:It does not happen to other private landowners. Our ancestors have lived on our land for 60,000 years. We should have been respected as landowners and consulted about any changes.Those feelings reflect the confusion and the hurt that is currently being experienced by the traditional owners who entered into the joint management agreement with the Commonwealth via the director of national parks in good faith. The current leases agreement between the traditional owners and the director of national parks to establish Kakadu National Park was signed in October 1978. For Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, the current joint management arrangements were established in 1986. In agreeing to a lease, the traditional owners said very clearly that they wanted a central role in the management of the park alongside the director.So what is Senator Hill trying to achieve by imposing changes to the joint management arrangements and why is he putting the people's and the public's access to Kakadu and Uluru at risk? The joint management agreements were established under the terms of a 99-year lease governed by section 14C of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and, of course, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The joint management arrangements are nationally and internationally recognised as representing best practice in the fields of cultural and natural resource management because the current joint management arrangements involve the traditional owners in all aspects of natural and cultural resource management.In 1995 the park was awarded the prestigious UNESCO Picasso gold medal for outstanding management in cooperation with the traditional Aboriginal owners. However, the current minister for the environment, Senator Hill, seems determined to change the arrangements, whether or not he has the agreement of the traditional landowners and regardless of what impact it might have on the public access to both of these parks.An article in the Age of Thursday, 29 April, titled `Bill warning over Kakadu', included comments from a barrister who has prepared advice for the Northern Land Council and the Kakadu board of management about whether the proposed changes would constitute a breach of the lease. The barrister, Mr Robert Blowes, was quoted as saying that the new legislation in its present form would be inconsistent with the lease and detrimental to the traditional owners, putting at risk the 99-year lease between the traditional owners and the Commonwealth government. Why then is Senator Hill prepared to jeopardise this relationship, something which is valued by both Australians and overseas visitors alike?If the traditional landowners decided the lease arrangements with the Commonwealth government were no longer valid, as a result of the unilateral changes being imposed on them by Senator Hill, then the Northern Territory's tourism industry would be dealt a heavy blow. The traditional landowners could, as would be their right as private landowners—which is something that this government continually forgets or does not want to know about, that is, the rights of indigenous people—decline to allow public access to their property.Tourism in the Northern Territory is the second largest industry after the minerals industry and is worth around $700 million annually to the Northern Territory. It is based on Aboriginal art and culture and on the environment. Tourism operators in the Territory are very concerned about the belligerent attitude of Senator Hill in regard to his dealings with the owners of Kakadu and Uluru. Paul Styles from the Northern Territory branch of the Tourism Council said in evidence to the Senate's inquiry into this bill on 17 March this year:We are concerned—that is the Tourism Council—that progress on this bill is continuing without the support of the traditional owners of the two Commonwealth-run national parks within the Northern Territory, and that that has resulted in a breakdown of trust between the boards of those two parks and the federal minister. The tourism industry is concerned that that is occurring, and, of itself, is beginning to create some uncertainty about the future of those parks. We are assured and are confident that the traditional owners do not wish to see an end to the public enjoyment of the parks.In that respect, Mr Styles is right. There has been a breakdown of trust between the boards of those two parks and the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, who just does not seem able to understand the importance of the joint management arrangements for the traditional owners. Joanne Willmot, Chair of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board of Management, described joint management as being supported by four legs: the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, the park lease and the park's plan of management. But the federal government is threatening the very existence of the joint management arrangements by chopping off one of those legs.When the Uluru-Kata Tjuta board of management was established on 10 December 1985, the Northern Territory government was entitled to a seat on that board. However, in a fit of pique over the hand-back of the land to the traditional owners, that government refused to make a nomination. It is no secret that the Northern Territory government wants ultimate management control over Uluru and Kakadu. However, this is something which understandably is resisted by the traditional owners, knowing the Northern Territory government's patronising attitude to indigenous Territorians. Senator Hill has claimed that it is necessary to have a Territory representative on the board in order to build a more constructive relationship between the Northern Territory government and indigenous people. Also, the minister has said it would be an opportunity for funds to be properly directed to essential services for residents of Uluru and Kakadu.Handing over of management control to the Northern Territory government would cancel the effect of the hand-back of Uluru and Kakadu, even if traditional owners retained formal title. To suggest that NT representation on the boards of management would assist with the provision of services is, in itself, a damning indictment on the Territory government for its failure to provide essential services and infrastructure to indigenous people living at Mutitjulu, Jabiru or elsewhere in the parks.The Northern Territory government does not provide local government services and infrastructure to the Mutitjulu community located in Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park—something that is probably not widely known, particularly by members of the federal government. Essential services are provided by Parks Australia. Nor does the Territory government provide local government services—roads, footpaths, rubbish collection—outside of Jabiru. That is a town located within Kakadu National Park. The provision of essential services and infrastructure by the Northern Territory government should not be tied or linked to NT government representation on the board of management.As Senator Margetts has suggested, it seems that the greater the contribution of indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, the fewer the resources the Northern Territory government makes available for basic human services; or, the more a community earns, the more you are expected to be self-reliant and fewer government resources go into your community. It should also be remembered that the Northern Territory government opposed world heritage listing for both Kakadu and Uluru and advocates mining in Kakadu. Now though, it seems they are quite keen to get their hands on the joint management committee.There is no equivalent of section 70 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 in the current bill. That section assures traditional owners that their rights prevail over non-Aboriginal conservation interests, within proper limits. It should come as no surprise that there is no duplication of this section in the new bill. It allowed traditional owners the right to continue hunting and gathering on the land and in the sea. It is in their lease agreement and they want it written in law as well. However, under the proposed legislation, the minister will have to be satisfied that `the action is of particular significance in indigenous tradition'. Aboriginal people have pointed out that they know the right times to hunt and how much they can take, and that it is in their interests to look after and sustain biodiversity. In fact, they probably know that better than any non-Aboriginal person we know of.Access to biological resources is an important issue for Aboriginal traditional owners. Aboriginal people have expressed concern that there is insufficient protection given in the bill to prevent the appropriation by pharmaceutical companies of indigenous biological knowledge, without acknowledgment or compensation, for significant industrial and commercial gain. Section 301 simply leaves control of access to biological resources in Commonwealth areas to regulation—and ignores non-Commonwealth areas altogether—and is unlikely to address their concerns. Indigenous people, whose human, plant and animal genetic and scientific resources are being collected and studied by geneticists, should be involved in policy development in this area.Another key concern indicated by indigenous people was the proposal to repeal the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. This would have repealed the statutory position of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. Recently, on 25 May, the minister announced that he had done a backflip and had decided to retain the statutory position of the Commonwealth Director of National Parks and Wildlife. Having just received the numerous amendments this afternoon, many of us have probably not had time to see whether that commitment is translated into fact. However, questions remain about the role and resources of that position.Jabiru is crown land vested in the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, and this bill seeks to weaken indigenous control over the township of Jabiru, which is situated in Kakadu National Park. The town lease, the Kakadu plan of management and the Jabiru town plan regulate development of the town. The bill seeks to weaken the limited control over management and future development of Jabiru that traditional owners currently enjoy through the board of management. It seeks to weaken its role in the development of the plan of management and the influence of the board on the decisions of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife.The bill makes no provision for what happens in Jabiru when there is no plan of management in force, and it weakens existing arrangements that limit the capacity for the government to remove Jabiru from the park. Any weakening of the control of the development, expansion and ownership of Jabiru would have a detrimental effect on the national park, the environment, the biodiversity and the local Aboriginal people.In conclusion, I put on the record that there are many areas of the bill which affect not only indigenous people in the Northern Territory but the Northern Territory as a whole. Time prevents me from going through each of those, but the essence of my speech today is to point out that indigenous people in the Northern Territory are not happy with the proposed changes and they are not happy with the lack of consultation regarding these changes. Indigenous people have a better understanding—better than any Australians—of the importance of the environment. It is part of their life. They depend on the land. They live it and they enact it each day. This legislation does not recognise that role that indigenous Australians play and the role that they maintain in achieving good conservation outcomes. Therefore, as part of the ALP's position, I will be strongly opposing this legislation in its current form.16:40:005945Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I do not think it is an overstatement to say that this Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] represents a landmark for environment legislation in Australia. We said when it first emerged that it needed major surgery. It was full of loopholes. There was too much discretion for the minister and too high a risk of devolving decision making to the states on matters of national significance. Well, a Senate inquiry, hundreds of submissions, hearings in almost all states and more than 400 amendments later, that surgery is complete. I might say that that surgery would not have been possible on the floor—trying to juggle so many amendments. I welcome the government's willingness to take on board the concerns of conservation groups, ordinary citizens, indigenous Australians and the Australian Democrats. We could have walked away from this legislation. That would have been the easy path to choose. Instead, we chose to do the hard yards and to be at the negotiating table. I think we have played a constructive role and achieved an outcome which is far better than the status quo and far far better than the original legislation.I summarise the key points that our role in this negotiation will lead to: more effective protection for world heritage areas, Ramsar wetlands of international importance, threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species, whales and dolphins, and the marine environment; approvals processes remaining under Commonwealth auspices, and public consultation and transparency instead of secretly negotiated bilateral agreements with the states; recognition of more threatening processes, more triggers for environmental assessment being added through a public review process, and greater accountability through audited processes and strong enforcement measures; greater consideration being given to indigenous people's role and interests in the protection of the environment and conservation of biodiversity. So our bottom line in this legislation has been the best environment outcome, and I think we have achieved that.I go first of all to the objects of the act and ecologically sustainable development. The community and all levels of government have recognised ESD as an important national goal, but much more needs to be done to make this goal a reality. The objects of the bill and the bill as a whole represent a major advance in this area. Firstly, the promotion of ecologically sustainable development is an explicit object of the bill. The amended bill also includes a definition of ESD which we consider reflects a good balance between environmental, economic and social considerations. These principles will apply to key decisions under the act, such as the granting of approvals following environmental impact assessment. This will give new life to the concept of ESD and ensure that ESD is applied in decision making, not only by the Commonwealth government but also by businesses putting forward development proposals. In contrast, the current legislation, showing its age, includes almost no mention of ESD. In fact, I think the only act in which ESD is mentioned is the Endangered Species Protection Act of 1992.We also support amendments to the objectives that explicitly recognise the role of indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity and recognise indigenous people's knowledge, which can provide a significant contribution to the conservation of biodiversity. For example, in the Uluru National Park, Aboriginal knowledge has been important in undertaking biodiversity surveys, and Aboriginal knowledge and practices relating to fire management have been incorporated into the burning strategy to maintain the diversity and mosaic of vegetation. Indigenous knowledge relating to the medicinal pharmacological, food and other values of Australia's biological resources could also lead to important products of commercial and social value. The recognition of the need for a partnership approach to environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, including through conservation agreements with land-holders and community involvement in management planning, is consistent with the community's desire to be directly involved in environmental management and the interest expressed by many individuals and organisations during the Senate inquiry into the bill to be involved in the implementation of this bill.Going on to matters of national environmental significance, we very much welcome the designation of world heritage properties, Ramsar wetlands, threatened species and ecological communities, internationally protected migratory species, the marine environment and nuclear actions as matters of national environment significance. These are matters which should trigger the environment assessment and approval process, as they are clearly of national or international significance for which the federal government must be responsible.We sought the inclusion of criminal offences for breaches which involve taking actions with a significant impact on matters of national environment significance without appropriate approvals. We consider that the criminal penalties proposed in the amendments—that is, up to seven years imprisonment and/or $460,200 for individuals—are appropriate, given the national significance of these matters. The minister will not be able to approve the construction or operation of nuclear facilities, such as nuclear fuel fabrication plants and nuclear power plants.A significant amendment will provide for reviews every five years on whether the operation of the act should be extended and on the addition of new triggers. This will be a public process, with public input being sought before preparation of a review report commences and with public comments being sought on the draft report. This will ensure public consultation and transparency in the evolution of the Commonwealth's triggers for the environmental assessment and approval process. The proposed amendments will not limit the minister's ability to add new triggers at any time to deal with environmental challenges that are not foreseen or adopted through the review process.Going on to conservation agreements, the proposed amendments will remove any exemptions from the environment assessment and approval process through conservation agreements. This amendment will ensure that even where a conservation agreement exists, approvals will have to be sought for any activity which is regulated by this bill.On the question of bilateral agreements and declarations, the bill provides for the environment minister to accredit state environment assessment and approval processes through bilateral agreements and Commonwealth processes through declarations. The proposed amendments deliver enhanced safeguards relating to accreditation which we very strongly support. In particular, bilateral agreements will be developed with full transparency and public consultation, with the minister notifying his or her intention to prepare a bilateral agreement and seeking public comments on a draft agreement, and publishing finalised agreements.Before entering a bilateral agreement, the minister will need to consider the role and interests of indigenous peoples in promoting the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources in the context of the agreement, taking into account Australia's relevant obligations under the biodiversity convention. The safeguards for declarations accrediting Commonwealth processes have been brought into line with those applying to bilateral agreements accrediting state processes. States and Commonwealth agencies will be accredited to grant approvals only in accordance with management plans which are in force under state or Commonwealth law and which have been accredited by the Commonwealth environment minister.The minister may accredit a management plan only if satisfied that the plan accords with the objects of the act; that the plan and the relevant state or Commonwealth law meet criteria specified in the regulations; that there has been or will be adequate assessment of the impacts of actions approved in accordance with the plan; that actions approved in accordance with the management plan will not have unacceptable or unsustainable impacts on matters of national environment significance; that the plan is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the treaties dealing with world heritage, Ramsar, biodiversity and migratory species; that a plan dealing with world heritage and Ramsar sites is consistent with Australian world heritage and Ramsar management principles; and that the plan has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament and has not been disallowed. In other words, the only delegation of Commonwealth approvals is itself subject to the scrutiny of the parliament.The proposed amendments require the making of regulations which specify criteria for accredited management plans. Bilateral agreements will include a provision recognising that the Commonwealth Auditor-General may undertake audits relating to the agreement. State assessment processes which are accredited on a project-by-project basis must be carried out under state law, and both the process and the law must meet standards specified in mandatory regulations. Consistent with the wishes of the traditional owners of Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee National Parks, bilateral agreements will not apply to these parks.These safeguards provide the public with greater confidence in the concept of accrediting state and Commonwealth agencies to fulfil responsibilities for matters of national environment significance. The proposed amendments address a major concern expressed about the bill, that only impacts on matters of national environment significance would be addressed. It was assumed that the states and territories would address the impacts of a proposal on matters of state or local significance.However, with the proposed amendments, the bill will require that states and territories accredited to assess or approve proposals relating to matters of national environment significance must also ensure that other environmental issues are addressed. In addition, the Commonwealth environment minister must not approve proposals before receiving a notice from the relevant state or territory stating that impacts on matters of state or local significance have been assessed to the greatest extent practicable. These proposed amendments will ensure that no environmental matter falls between the cracks.Going on to assessment and approval processes, the proposed amendments will require the minister to publish all referrals and to seek public comment on whether the referred action should be subject to environmental assessment and approval. The minister must consider public comments received on the referrals. This amendment introduces public consultation and strengthens accountability in the screening of proposals, which is a crucial step in the assessment process.An important consideration in the screening of proposals is whether an action has a `significant impact' on the matter protected by the bill. During the Senate inquiry into the bill, concerns were raised by various stakeholder groups about the meaning of `significant impact'. We are pleased to see that the amended bill will provide for regulations which set out matters to be taken into account when determining whether an action has a significant impact. This will provide addition al guidance and certainty to the community, as well as to the environment minister.Public consultation will now be mandatory for all assessments conducted on the basis of preliminary documentation—currently an often used form of assessment which does not involve a public environmental report, environmental impact statement or inquiry. The proposed amendments provide that important safeguards to claims of commercial confidentiality in relation to assessment documentation are genuine. The onus will be on persons claiming commercial confidentiality to prove the basis of the claim against criteria spelled out in the amendments.Currently, the bill proposes that the minister be able to revoke an approval where a breach of conditions has resulted in a significant impact on the matter protected by the bill, or where the predicted impacts have underestimated the actual impacts of a proposal. We support the proposed amendments to extend this capacity to include situations where the minister believes that certain or likely impacts were not accurately identified in the assessment process, either deliberately or due to negligence.The provision for strategic assessment of policies, plans and programs is a step forward for environmental assessment legislation. The Democrats support the mandatory strategic assessment of fisheries without current management plans. We are conscious that no public environmental report or environmental impact statement has been prepared for any fishery under the current Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The proposed amendments to the provisions on strategic assessment will ensure that public comment is sought and taken into account in developing the terms of reference for any assessments, as well as in preparation of the assessment report.An innovative provision proposed in the amendments, and negotiated by the Democrats, relates to the weekly publication on the Internet of information on environmental assessments—that is, clause 170A. This will provide a clearing house of information which will be extremely useful to members of the community who wish to be notified of refer rals, the availability of assessment documentation and reports, invitations for public comment and relevant decisions by the minister. Traditional media will, of course, continue to be employed for these purposes for members of the public who do not have access to the Internet.In terms of enforcement, the Democrats note that the bill and proposed amendments provide a comprehensive, consistent and effective enforcement system. There is now a wide range of enforcement options available to the Commonwealth to deal with non-compliance such as criminal offences and penalties, directed environmental audits, conservation orders for threatened species in Commonwealth areas, injunctions, appropriate third party standing provisions for judicial review and injunctions, civil penalties, liability of executive officers of corporations, infringement notices, the capacity to publicise contraventions and liability for loss or damage arising from a contraventions. These provisions will provide the `teeth' that are sorely lacking in much of the existing legislation which is to be replaced by the bill.As a result of amendments negotiated by the Democrats, criminal offences will now complement the civil penalties in the bill—it is appropriate that jail terms are available to deal with the worst offences, particularly those relating to matters of international and national environmental significance—and the capacity of the minister to require an independent environmental audit is widened to include situations where the minister suspects that the actual or likely impacts of an action authorised by an environmental authority are significantly greater than indicated in the information available to the minister when the authority was granted.We are very pleased with the proposed amendments which will require, for the first time, Commonwealth departments, authorities, companies and agencies to report on their performance in achieving ecologically sustainable development. We believe that this mandatory requirement will reinvigorate the Commonwealth's commitment to implement ESD and establish greater accountability for environmental performance. We also support the proposed amendment requiring state of the environment reporting every five years.State of the environment reporting is a powerful tool for informing the public about their environment. Importantly, state of the environment reports assist decision makers and the community to protect and conserve the environment. Although the first national state of the environment report was published in 1996 without legislation, the amended bill will provide greater certainty that future reports will be prepared. We support regular review of the operation and effectiveness of the act and we are pleased to see the proposed amendment requiring such reviews. My colleague Senator Andrew Bartlett will complete the description of the amendments and the bill itself in his speech in the second reading debate. I conclude my comments.16:57:005949Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What we have just heard is a total failure to explain the Democrats' central role in the most disgusting sell-out of the Australian environment and laws to protect the Australian environment that this Senate chamber has ever seen. I guess that is why Senator Allison has just left the chamber, and there is not one Democrat in here to defend their role in this sell-out of the Australian environment. It is absolutely gobsmacking that the Democrats, who have always touted themselves as saviours of the Franklin River, who have claimed that they were the protectors of the Daintree Rainforest, Kakadu, Fraser Island and Australia's environment in general, have, for a place at the Howard table of power—fleeting as that may be—given their tawdry imprimatur to this 400-page document which, if it had been in place 30 years ago, would have seen the Franklin flooded by the Democrats, the Daintree logged by the Democrats, and Fraser Island and much more of Kakadu mined by the Democrats. All of this for a small place at the table of Howard power in 1999.Some environmentalists who were very unpractised at the way that power works in this place were sucked into this downward Democrat vortex, which takes Australia's environmental laws down the plughole. However, the major environmental groups feel differently. They were not at the table, and they are not satisfied with environmental crumbs. They stayed in contact with their constituency and they stayed true to principle, which is something the Democrats have totally failed to do. In the press release from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia and the Wilderness Society this afternoon, these groups said that this deal does not address the major environmental problems with the government's bill; that is, the Democrats' deal. We are not convinced that the dangerous thrust of this bill, which hands powers to the states, has been turned around.The representatives of the Australian environment movement and millions of Australians who depend on them for holding the line on the environment, said this to the Democrats:The struggles of thousands of environmentalists to expand Commonwealth powers at Fraser Island, the Franklin Dam, the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics must not be in vain. The 400 amendments to the bill must not be rushed. They should be put on the table so that Australians who love their country can have a look.What do we have instead? Instead, we have one softly spoken, totally unconvincing Democrat senator, Senator Allison, fleeing the Senate straight after her contribution because she knows that, when she spoke about this legislation giving Australians `full transparency', to quote her, and public consultation, she was not prepared to make that stand herself. For the last few months, she and other environmental quislings have been at the table of this anti-environmental government selling out.Full transparency, my foot! Public consultation: none of it. The Australian Democrats are no longer worthy of the name of their party. Democrats, my foot! They are involved in backroom deals because they like the position at the table of power, as Senator Allison put it at her press conference today. To do that, they are prepared to throw transparency out the window.Indeed, just this morning, the same Senator Allison told the nation on the AM program that there was no deal. At 1 o'clock today, she and her shameful colleagues were at a press conference enumerating the hundreds of amendments that the government has now brought in here on their behalf, ostensibly to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. What they have is a sow of a purse. This nation, through successive economic rationalist governments, has decided that matters of trade and economics and, therefore, employment—measures to protect the national interest under the Constitution, such as tariffs—will be dismantled and given across to the altar of international trade agreements. When it comes to the environment, we go the other direction. We turn our back on international agreements and hand the powers back to the states and territories. We give them to not just any state and territory but the whole lot of them.In future, the great environmental issues of the day in Australia will be determined by what are called bilateral agreements. These are bilateral sell-outs of the environment, and I will tell you why. They involve the federal government entering into an agreement about such things as forests with the state and territory governments involved. It is a process of the lowest common denominator dictating national policy.Let us look at the one set of bilateral agreements already in place. These are the so-called regional forest agreements already signed for parts of Victoria, for all of Tasmania and for all of Western Australia, where there has been almost a revolution over this issue. When the Democrats say that they are serving the popular good, they ought to look at the Western Australian situation, where 87 per cent of people want the loggers out of the wild forests. However, because of this bilateral agreement process, the loggers have been given a licence to continue cutting over the next 20 years into thousands of hectares of the great jarrah, karri and other forests, their magnificent wildlife and their ecosystems in Western Australia. When it comes to Tasmania, world heritage value forests are being cut under these bilateral agreements as we sit here today.The Democrats now endorse regional forest agreements because they endorse this legislation and the bilateral component of it. To make this point to the Democrats, at question time today, I asked the minister accredited with being for the environment but who I maintain is against it, Senator Robert Hill, about page 9 of this 400-page document. It says that any company that takes an action which is even likely to have a significant impact on world heritage values shall be liable to a penalty of $5.5 million. That sounds like real environmental teeth. However, because of the bilateral agreement endorsed by the Democrats, that logging, which the government's own advisers have said has a significant adverse effect on the current world heritage area, is going to proceed a la Democrat philosophy.Moreover, under this bilateral agreement now endorsed by the Democrats, if the federal government were to make any move in the next 20 years to protect those world heritage values, to protect the tallest forests in the Southern Hemisphere, to protect the rare and endangered white goshawk or Tasmanian wedge tail—down to 200 breeding pairs each and dependent on forests in Tasmania—massive compensation would have to be paid to the woodchip corporations, which never paid a cent for those forests. There is no compensation for workers and no compensation for other industries such as tourism, which has more jobs dependent on forests in Tasmania than the woodchippers, but the woodchippers have the bilateral—state-federal—agreement, and the Democrats have endorsed that here today.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Rubbish!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Bartlett from Queensland says, `Rubbish.' This sell-out of the forests of Tasmania by Senator Bartlett is underscored by his own pathetic effort to somehow or other say, `Further down the line we can undo this.' He endorses the destruction of world heritage value forests, wild habitats and ecosystems around this country, and he says, `Well, we couldn't get an arrangement different from that with the government so we went along with the government. We're going to get this legislation through this parliament.' And then, weak-kneed, pathetic and quisling-like, these Democrats are going to bring in an amendment outside that government agreement and are going to ask Labor, the Greens and the Independents to endorse it, knowing full well that any amendment made outside the agreement at the Howard table—where they have been fronting up and feeling falsely powerful as they were done in in the last few days—is going to be blocked in the House of Representatives. They know that, and they know that no matter what is done in the Senate outside this agreement, which Senator Bartlett will forever be remembered for because I'll make sure he is as the environment goes down the stream, it has no chance of being amended outside that table of power they supped at as they sold out the environment.They talk about recovering in the coming months those things which are not in this legislation. Mr Acting Deputy President, they went to the government and said, `There has to be a trigger in this legislation for greenhouse gases and global warming—maybe one of the greatest, if not the greatest, environmental problem confronting humanity in the next century.' The government said, `You can't have it.' The Democrats said, `Oh, well, we accept that.' They then went to the table and said, `We want a trigger to stop the extraordinary destruction of woodlands across this country—500,000 soccer fields in area—each year.'The government, with these ninnies—these wet-behind-the-ears sell-out merchants—at the table said, `You can't have that, Democrats.' And they said, `Oh, well, we accept we can't have that.' And they went to the table and said, `We want an environment commissioner to give some muscle to this legislation, somebody who is independent,' and the government said, `You can't have that.' And they said, `Well, we're pathetic; we're here for the power, not for the environment.'DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—What have you got now?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—They can weasel their way into interjecting, `What have you got now?' like this pathetic senator is trying to do at the moment. They continued, `Oh, well; we accept that,' and then they and their fellow travellers came out, having had a lay-down misere dished up to them by the government and said, `We'll fix it later.'Mr Acting Deputy President, let me tell you who is going to do the fixing. The Democrats are political poodles. They have engaged in poodle politics—running round the room barking at everybody and then jumping into the first lap available. On this occasion it happens to be the Howard lap, the Hill lap and the Costello lap.These purveyors of poodle politics have said, `We'll fix it later. Somehow or other in the next 12 months we are going to bring in these triggers and these independent functions we failed to get now.' They are only in the Senate; they do not understand the bicameral arrangement of this place. They do not understand that it does not matter what they bring in here; they have now sold their power out. Anything that goes through this place will be blocked in the House of Representatives, where the Democrats do not have any representatives.What will happen in the next 12 months is that the government will say, `We've got our Democrat licence legislation. The Democrats have now given their stamp of approval to the regional forest agreements, which over the next 20 years are going to see the destruction of millions of hectares of Australia's natural forests and their wildlife habitats. We will go next to bilateral agreements on a whole range of other issues—nuclear issues, global warming, rivers, biodiversity and the things the Democrats left out.' But they will strike these agreements without the Democrats at the table. The government, with a chainsaw under each arm, will be at the table with the Premier of Tasmania, with Premier Court in Western Australia and with the new Chief Minister in the Northern Territory.Who is going to defend the environment at that table with these Democrat puppies shut out? They certainly are not going to—because they have sold out now; they have sold their power out. Do you know what they are going to do next, Mr Acting Deputy President? They are going to come in here, at the behest of the government, and bring the guillotine down on the debate of this monumental environmental issue. The Labor Party, for one, have some 300 amendments to try to fix the unfixable. The Democrats do not want to debate that; they want to get through their GST legislation, with its environmental destructiveness and social inequality. That is the big game for them—this is an add-on. But Australia and its environment, and this nation, are going to have to live with this perfidy by the Democrats—these people who, in my submission, do not deserve to be here doing this—for decades to come.These weasels, who have sold out their electorate of just last October, did not tell the electorate membership, did not tell the Democrats, that they were going to sell out comprehensively on their environmental principles—the same as they sold out on social justice through the GST. It is a day of damning shame on these Democrat sell-out merchants, and Australians are going to be trying to pick up the environment for years to come as a result.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Where were you when the committee—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order, Senator Patterson!17:16:005952Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to speak on this Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] . I have to say that I have not been as noted as Senator Brown has been, in his long history, for supporting green and environmental issues, and I do not claim to have the detailed knowledge that he has, but I have served on the Senate references committee covering the environment from 1996 to 1998—LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—A very good committee.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator Patterson has interjected. For part of that time she was the chair of the legislative committee of that area.UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Don't encourage her, Senator Schacht. She has been called to order already.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I see. Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I remember sitting through some of the hearings on this legislation and the references that were dealing with which way the Australian parliament should go, and which way the Australian people should go, in handling environmental issues. Without doubt, the Democrat representatives on that committee were very, very strong in wanting to strengthen the federal government's role in establishing environmental policy, outcomes and delivery in Australia. I have to say that I argued completely in favour of that position. Ideologically, some people might say I am an old-style centralist, but I actually believe I am an Australian first before I am a South Australian. I believe that, environmentally, you must have policies for the whole of this continent, and the best way to deliver them is through the national parliament, which is responsible to all the Australian people.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Centralise everything.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Not centralise everything, Senator Lightfoot. But let me point out to you that I am as concerned about the environment in the Kimberleys of your state as I am about the Flinders Ranges in my own state and the Franklin River in Tasmania—because I am an Australian, I am in the Australian parliament and all of those areas are represented in this parliament. The best environmental policies have been delivered out of this parliament. Some of the most controversial issues on the environment have been delivered from this parliament—from these two chambers. And I thank goodness that we have succeeded in changing the perception that the environment is just a states' issue, constitutionally left to the states.Through a mixture of the powers that are available to the Commonwealth of Australia through the Constitution, we have been able to insist that there be decent outcomes. For example, Fraser Island would be mined to nothing now if not for the fact that the Fraser government used its export powers to stop giving permits to export the sand from Fraser Island. That was an excellent long-term outcome that, economically, is important for that region of the central coast of Queensland because of the tourist potential of Fraser Island, which is now a world icon environmentally. It was the Fraser government—I am mentioning the Fraser government because recognition and credit should be given where they are due—that took the decision to ban whaling. I happen to know that in your state, Senator Lightfoot, Albany in the south-west was one of the last whaling places left. There was an industry there and some people lost their jobs. There is no argument that those decisions that were taken affected people in Albany and in Western Australia. But can anyone say now that the decision to ban whaling was wrong?In my own state, the economic regeneration of the south coast around Victor Harbor every winter is astonishing. Why? Because people come every weekend and during the week in their tens of thousands to see the whales. They spend money locally in small businesses. It has been the economic saviour of this region. People are going out on the Eyre Highway to see the whales now breeding at the top of the Bight. Those decisions of the Fraser government, supported by the Labor Party at the time, have led to major economic benefits—far outweighing the few jobs that may have been lost at Albany when we closed the whaling station. But that was a national decision. If it had been left to the state government of Western Australia to close the Albany whaling station, they would never have done it. If it had been left to the Queensland government to stop the logging of the Daintree rainforest—the tropical rainforest of the north—they would never have done it.We all remember here in this chamber when Senator Richardson, the minister who got the world heritage listing for the tropical rainforests of North Queensland, was abused by the National Party of Queensland, who said that he was costing jobs at Ravenshoe. And that was the attack. You could not imagine a National Party government of Queensland taking the same decision. Now everybody says that this was a touch of genius because the growth of the tourist industry in Cairns and North Queensland, based on people wanting to see natural rainforest, has more than outweighed the jobs lost by the closure of some sawmills. Again, it was a national decision. The one of all icon decisions was, of course, the Franklin River. At the 1983 elections we said, `We will go to ban it. We will use our national treaty powers to say, "You can't dam the Franklin River".' I think a lot of people voted for the Labor Party at that election because they did not want to see one of the last great wild rivers of the world turned into another concrete dam.Senator Lightfoot interjecting—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I note the interjection from Senator Lightfoot, who, I accept, is a strong state righter. He has always argued that position since he has been here, and I understand that, when he was a member of the Western Australian parliament, he took a very strong pro-Western Australian view—a states' rights view. I think he is wrong. We would argue ideologically that we have a difference of opinion. I am arguing here to him that saving the Franklin River would not have occurred if we had relied on a state Labor or Liberal government in Tasmania. It wrecked the Labor Party for a decade. I think we went down to no seats in Tasmania over this issue federally. For a decade, we were nearly wiped out at the state level. But now we have in the south-west of Tasmania a wild river that is recognised around the world as one of the great natural wildernesses to be enjoyed by future generations forever.And there is another area, I would say to you, Senator Lightfoot, and to others. I remember in 1989-90 debating in this parliament the future of Antarctica. We declared that the whole of Antarctica should be an international wilderness area free from mining or exploitation forever. Some people said that was too radical at the time. In the end I think we even got bipartisan support. This parliament took a national and international decision that brought great credit to this country and to this parliament. You cannot rely on states to do that. They will never have a national view or even an international view.Therefore, we come to this bill. I have not had a chance to read the Democrat amendments to this bill in detail. They have put out a press release. I have to say that I find it astonishing that the Democrats would put this out as a deal in the last week of the federal parliament before we adjourn for the winter break. They have every opportunity to tell the government, `Go jump; we will not deal with this bill until we come back in August.' Why aren't their amendments being circulated to the broad environmental community, the Australian community, over the next two months so that there can be proper discussion? I suspect that, at some stage tonight or first thing tomorrow morning, the Democrats will vote with the government to guillotine and gag this bill through. When they do—I have to agree with Senator Brown—it will be a shameful day for the Democrats. It will be the end of their credentials as a mainstream environmentally sensitive party if they gag this bill and their amendments through before people have had time to scrutinise them.They skite—to use a good old Australian term—in their statement that they have 400 amendments to the government's bill—tabled today, voted on tomorrow. I will bet two bob to London Bridge or the Sydney Harbour Bridge that there are mistakes in these amendments; that they will be back here in six months time saying, `Oops, sorry, we didn't realise what that meant,' because this has been done in haste as part of the deal and how Mr Howard—and I congratulate him in one sense on this—has traduced the leadership of the Democrats. He has tickled their belly and called them across. `Want to be at the main table?' he says, and Senator Lees says, `Oh, thank you very much; I now feel important. I'll vote. We'll give you something; yes, we'll do this,'—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Two brass pennies.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes, for almost nothing they have given away their negotiating position. No wonder we are seeing revolts in the Democrat party all around Australia—they cannot believe it. The GST deal, I suspect, was bad enough for them, but the Democrats, who have prided themselves on their environmental credentials, have told their own supporters, who are overwhelmingly strong environmentalists, that they have done this deal and will have it voted on in 24 hours, before even their own membership sees the list of these 400 amendments.What I also find interesting about this press statement is that it has a photograph of all the Democrat team up the top and then over the page they have had to go to the trouble of getting all the Democrat senators to sign it. Does this mean that there was trouble in the camp about getting agreement and that all the disputes meant that they had to force people to sign and have their photographs up the top? I would have thought this statement was issued either by Senator Meg Lees, as the Leader of the Democrats, or by Senator Lyn Allison, the spokesperson on the environment. Why did Meg Lees and Lyn Allison need to have the photos of all the other Democrats up the top and all their signatures on this statement? It means that they know that there is big strife inside the party about it, and they are trying to show there is some unity. It is clearly a forced unity when you have to get down to doing this.We saw yesterday another example of how the Democrats have been traduced by this Prime Minister, in the way they did not use any of their negotiating position to stop the sale of Telstra being guillotined and gagged through this parliament. They had all the cards in their hands. They had three aces.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Four.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—They had four aces. We had about a two of clubs and a three of diamonds in our hand as opposition. They had all the aces. They could have told the government, `We're dealing with you about the GST; leave the Telstra bill alone. We are not going to let you gag that through, otherwise other things are off.' But not only did they not do that; they then—as it will be by the end of tomorrow—let them guillotine and gag this bill on the environment through the parliament as well without proper scrutiny.Every Democrat I have heard for five to 10 years has argued for stronger Commonwealth power—`We want national outcomes for environmental policy.' The Democrats say, as you read through this statement, that they have strengthened it. It says, `Democrats deliver expansion of Commonwealth environmental powers.' This is doublespeak; this is newspeak; this is Orwellian. It does not mean that at all. This constrains and constricts the federal government's power over environmental policy.I suspect there are a lot of Liberal Party and National Party members, including Senator Lightfoot, who will be delighted with this package because there are arrangements to go back to the states in these so-called bilateral agreements. As I understand the way it reads—and no-one has explained to me why I am wrong about what I am about to say—under such a measure the Franklin River back in 1983 would have been dammed, the Daintree would have been woodchipped and Fraser Island would have been mined. Maybe we could still have stopped the hunting of whales, because that was in international waters, but a number of those major environmental initiatives, which everybody in Australia, except the last couple of diehards, and everybody internationally now recognise as a great achievement, would not have occurred.I cannot see in the statement, in the time I have had it, how the Democrats can prove otherwise. They say they have strengthened certain administrative arrangements, et cetera. That is a pig in a poke, to use the old saying. How can you guarantee administrative arrangements once the legislation is through? The Senator Lightfoots of the world, who state their position openly and up-front, are not going to traduce the rules. Will Meg Lees be welcomed into Senator Hill's office or the office of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources to discuss environmental issues such as greenhouse gas emissions? Of course not. Once the bill goes through, the phone will be silent. They will not answer the calls from Meg Lees or Lyn Allison.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—The Patagonian toothfish made an appearance.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—As Senator Quirke quite rightly points out, we have had concerned questions about the Patagonian toothfish and other things. That will all be irrelevant, because this minister will sit here and smile cynically and say, `I will think about that next year.' There is nothing in this that constrains him. All of these arrangements are not going to be locked in. Loopholes will be in existence. How could the Democrats draft 400 amendments in a few days and not be willing to have them out as an exposure draft to their own constituency? This amazes me. As I said to one rank and file Democrat supporter earlier today, `What is your strategy? It has got me whacked. I can't work out your strategy.' If I could see they were going to get a lot of extra votes for all of this, I would say that I do not agree with the policy but politically they are going to gain support. But not only are they creating a roaring bushfire of opposition amongst their own supporters on the GST but also now on the basic area of support for the Democrats amongst environmentalists they are doing a deal with this government in a rushed way and they are going to gag it through, and the rest of the party is going to be up in arms. Their own natural voters are going to say, `Why should we support the Democrats?'NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—They won't need a postal ballot; they'll be able to meet in a phone box.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator George Campbell is absolutely correct. I just cannot work it out. Let the Democrats explain this new political strategy and what it is going to do for their long-term future. It has got me whacked. I have to say cynically that this might be a good thing for the Labor Party. During the 1980s we lost a lot of voters. A lot of our supporters went to the Democrats, particularly in my state; consistently it was over 10 per cent in most elections federally. Most of them are ex-Labor voters who voted for the Labor Party in the 1960s, the 1970s and the early 1980s. I have to say that on the GST and this environment bill we have got a great opportunity to go back to those people and say, `You have been double-crossed; you have been let down. All those things for which you supported the Democrats and stuck with them through thick and thin have now disappeared. There is no reason for you to vote for the Democrats on social justice grounds, on social equity grounds or on environmental grounds.'I am astonished that the Democrats would just calmly walk off the edge of the cliff like political lemmings into the hands of John Howard for a while, until he lets them drop to the bottom of the ocean and says, `Bad luck, sport, I've got the price. I've got the political victory.' Senator Lightfoot smiles nicely at the thought of that. I cannot think of a stronger indication that my strategic political assessment is correct.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—I was thinking of the Democrats mixing with the Patagonian toothfish.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes, as John Howard lets them drop to the bottom. You are dead right. This is an astonishing development today from the Democrats, as astonishing as their giving away their bargaining position over the GST. I think the last month is going to be the most devastating month in the history of the Democrats—since they were formed in 1977 on the basis of keeping the bastards honest. We know that in one sense the Democrats have now joined one bunch of bastards and are no longer keeping them honest. It is an astonishing political development. Illegitimacy these days is not a derogatory term in many cases, but the way they have done it, they have certainly made themselves the victims of ridicule, as they deserve to be. We in the Labor Party look forward to pointing out, at the coming federal election and leading up to that, to all those long-term loyal Democrat supporters, many of them originally Labor supporters, that it is time to come home to the Labor Party, where they will get decent social justice policies and decent environmental policies.17:36:005956Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—As we know, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] proposes a scheme which purports to provide environmental protection. I was reading the explanatory memorandum, which says:The objects of this Bill are to:- provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment which are matters of national environmental significance,- promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources,- promote the conservation of biodiversity,- promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, and landholders, and- assist in the co-operative implementation of Australia's international environmental responsibilities.I cannot say I have read every word in the bill, but I have got to say that this bill certainly does not do that. That is quite obvious, because the Democrats have moved probably the largest number of amendments to any piece of legislation seen in this place for a long time—and all to do a deal with the government.As part of the processes of this legislation you have bilateral agreements that can be developed between the states and territories and the Commonwealth. It says in division 2 of the bill, with regard to a bilateral agreement:(2) A bilateral agreement is a written agreement between the Commonwealth with a State or a self governing Territory that:(a) provides for one or more of the following:(i) protecting the environment;(ii) promoting the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources;(iii) ensuring an efficient, timely and effective process for environmental assessment and approval of actions;(iv) minimising duplication in the environmental assessment and approval process through Commonwealth accreditation of the processes of the State or Territory (or vice versa); and(b) is expressed to be a bilateral agreement.Look at the first part: `protecting the environment'. A number of other speakers have raised this with regard to the states' or territories' records on these issues. I do not think there would be one state that could claim that over time they have acted in the best interests of the environment.I will speak about my own state and some of the very significant examples where state governments have not sought to act in the best interests of the environment. The Franklin River was one example that received international recognition. The Commonwealth course of action certainly was not supported by the majority of Tasmanians. As Senator Schacht said, if you ask Tasmanians the same question today—that is, would they support that or would they not—they definitely would support it. That is why it is important for the Commonwealth to have a very significant and senior role with regard to consideration of the environment.We have some other bilateral type agreements that we have entered into more recently with some states. Despite the fact that I feel that those agreements, known as Regional Forest Agreements, are important for a number of reasons, they are not achieving the outcomes they were designed to achieve with respect to, in the terms of this bill, `promoting the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources'. That is simply not the case in any state.Senator Bartlett interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I am pleased you interrupted, Senator Bartlett, because one of your amendments goes to that area of forests. I hope that, when it comes to the debate in the committee stage of this bill, we will have enough time to debate some of your amendments, pathetic as they are, because you will need to explain a lot of them not only to us in this chamber but also to all the conservation minded people in this country. How are you going to see some of the things carried through? How are you going to achieve outcomes with regard to the amendments that you are moving to this totally unsatisfactory bill? For the information of Senator Bartlett, this is a bilateral agreement in another form. It just goes to show that, despite the fact that the states may be well intentioned, they do not have the capacity to always act in the best interests of the environment.Look at this government's role. It picked up the cudgels with regard to the national forest policy statement and the criteria that had been set down by us—albeit they are probably not perfect. The negotiations it entered into in terms of bilateral agreements are the point here. We have states that have a history of not being able to act in the best interests of the environment. We have a federal government that will be involved in the negotiation of these agreements and that has a record of not negotiating in the interests of the environment. And of course we have the Democrats who have agreed to support the government.On a few occasions I have had to agree with Senator Bob Brown. We have had many disagreements over time—some very significant disagreements over time—but I do on this occasion have to agree with the comments he made earlier. The Democrats, for all their intent and purpose and for all the reasons that they find themselves in this parliament, have certainly done themselves a disservice. They have done their constituents and supporters a disservice by going down this path and supporting the government on this occasion. Nothing can be done to this bill to make it worthy of protecting the important areas of Australia's environment.Over the years I have had views about the fact that we need to make sure that if we are to use natural resources—and I have a lot of involvement in the forest industry and forestry—we should do so in an ecologically sustainable way. We had to have many hard, long and difficult debates about those issues, but we gradually worked towards a process that could bring that about. The former federal Labor government, when it brought about the national forest policy statement, put in place a mechanism through which that could be achieved.Since 1996 that mechanism has been changed and there has been a totally different approach. The minister comes into this chamber and says, `We have spent more money and provided more money than ever before.' So what?Senator Quirke interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—That is probably true. But land clearing has not slowed down. In fact, it is not the amount of money you might provide to protect or enhance the environment, it is how you use that money and the things that you do in conjunction with the use of the money. That is where the problem lies. The government does not really have a commitment and it cannot, by its own social approach, have a commitment to the environment. That is a fact of life, as we have seen on so many occasions. I have to say—to give Senator Hill one bit of credit—that, at the edges where there has been agreement to take certain steps, the government has taken one or two steps. As a fisherman I have to say I was very pleased to see him take the step of actually banning the commercial fishing of blue marlin and black marlin. But, if I can go to another area of fishing, what has the government done about the issue of albatross? We have had committees and ideas—threat abatement plans and a whole plethora of things proposed to be done—but at the end of the day nothing really significant is being done. It is just a lot of noise.You can then go on to the land in terms of strategies to deal with salinity, which is a huge problem in this country. What are we doing? Very little—we are relying on community efforts. If you look at it, over time there have been strategies to plant a few trees here and there. If you were to analyse the expenditure there has probably been on various little plots of trees around the country and then say, `Well, look, how many of those survive today?' you would have to say it would probably be one of the biggest wastes of money of all time. That is unfortunate because I do not think the strategy has ever been right in terms of how you deal with environmental issues. They need to be taken with a more head-on approach. This government clearly does not have the commitment to do that and that is evident in this bill.I can point to that by going to the environmental impact assessment that is supposed to be done as part of preparing for the bilateral agreement. Division 6 of the bill, `Environmental impact statements', says:102 Minister must prepare guidelines for draft environmental impact statement(1) The Minister must prepare written guidelines—and it goes on to say what those guidelines should actually cover. They are to take account of a number of things, and the bill says:(2) In preparing the guidelines, the Minister must seek to ensure that the draft statement will:(a) contain enough information about the action and its relevant impacts to allow the Minister to make an informed decision whether or not to approve under Part 9 (for the purposes of each controlling provision) the taking of the action; and(b) address any matters specified by the regulations. There is no way that the minister, in terms of the bilateral agreements that are proposed to be undertaken or agreed to, will be able to make a proper assessment of all of that. The bill also allows for the establishment of committees but there is no explanation of who will be involved with regard to the environmental impact assessment committees and the various other committees that are proposed to be set up—and I think we might even give the Patagonian toothfish a run, Senator Quirke.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Patagonian toothfish and chips!Senator Bartlett interjecting—FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I know the fact that the Democrats have taken this step with the government must hurt you, Senator Bartlett. I think it was described by Senator Brown as the poodles jumping into the laps of the Prime Minister and the minister, and I think Senator Brown used the word `weasels'. Senator Brown, I do not know if you were aiming to get a bit of a menagerie going in here, but I know Senator Bartlett certainly was not enjoying the comments.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—I have always been an animal lover.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Well, Senator Bartlett, if you have always been an animal lover, you would not be taking the steps that you and your colleagues are currently taking, I can tell you. You are certainly selling them down the drain.With regard to the fisheries aspect of this, again the bill is very limited in its application—and I find that amazing. We get something like 108 pages of amendments, and I am not sure that it is not actually more than that because there are three pages here of additional Democrat amendments that I assume have to go with those that they have lobbed into the lap of the government to present on their behalf with its amendments.As I said, how is Senator Bartlett going to explain what the definition is of a forestry operation that will have a `significant impact' on the environment? I would be very keen to hear Senator Bartlett's definition of a `significant impact', because I am not quite sure how you then apply that. It would really be a matter of interpretation for the individual: degree of significance is in the eye of the beholder. From our point of view and my point of view, this bill does remove what was and is a very important role for the Commonwealth.I have had arguments about Commonwealth intervention in some matters but at the end of the day—in most, if not all, instances—those interventions have proven to be the right interventions. As Senator Schacht pointed out, when we were in government we did cop a lot of flak from a lot of corners in respect of that, but it was proven to be the right process. To now try and pass off the responsibility that we have had over a long time to the states, which, as we know and as I said before, have a history of not being able to act in the best interests of the environment, from a national perspective in particular, is the wrong move. It is a move that was opposed by the Democrats not that long ago; one that they used to speak about very dearly and one that they wanted the Commonwealth to maintain. I can recall that even Senator Bartlett, in making some comment with regard to regional forest agreements, said exactly that.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—You betcha.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I wonder then how the Democrats arrived at the position they are now in. Is this a sort of GST linked, biodiversity linked position?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—It's an RFA endorsement licence.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—That is interesting, because I thought they actually opposed the RFAs.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Not anymore.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I thought I had seen some literature from Senator Bartlett that was very critical of regional forest agreements.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—You still do.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—Senator Bartlett, on behalf of the Democrats, should withdraw all his amendments and say, `We are opposed to this bill.' That is what he should do if he wants to do the right thing by the environment, his constituents and all those Austral ians who want to ensure that the right course of action is taken on the environment in the long term. No matter where you go around this country, you can find examples of where the Commonwealth has needed to take a course of action to ensure that the environment is protected. The examples do not just relate to the environment; there is a whole host of them—for instance, animals and fish.We have heard examples concerning fisheries management where the Commonwealth has had to get the states together to thrash out agreements on the level of catch, et cetera. It has been clearly identified that the states do not have the capacity to do this. It is not acceptable for us to say, `Let's handpass this back to the states. Let them get on with the job and wreck things for the future generations of this country.' That was another aspect of the bill that I found rather interesting. It refers to `future generations', yet it will do nothing in that respect. The bill will exclude the Commonwealth from the powers it ought to have and ought to maintain to ensure proper management, protection and conservation of the environment of this country.In closing, I urge the Democrats, on the basis of their own statements and the criticisms that they have made of the Labor Party, to take a long, hard look at themselves. It is bad enough that they have gone down the little road with the Prime Minister on the GST, but they ought not sell out on the environment. It ought to be something on which they have at least the capacity to stand up and say, `We will protect one of the mainstream issues that brought us into this parliament.' That is what they ought to do. If they cannot do that, at the end of the day they will be judged by the people who put them here. If I were Senator Bartlett, I would think long and hard. I hope that at some point in time they will come to their senses.17:55:005959Reynolds, Sen MargaretSenator REYNOLDSXI4QLDALP00—I endorse the remarks that have been made by my two colleagues on this side of this chamber—Senator Murphy and Senator Brown. There are two key issues involved here. First of all, why are we rushing 400 amendments, I understand, through by this time tomorrow or even earlier? What is the rush? Why do the Australian Democrats in particular, as has already been said, suddenly believe that this bill is so important, so acceptable in its current form, that it has to be rushed through without consultation?The second issue is also one of principle: what is it about the agreement between the Democrats and the government that suddenly it is acceptable to hand back powers to the states? This is something that environmentalists have worked against for years. It was fundamental in the Franklin Dam case and in the issues surrounding Fraser Island, the wet tropics in my own state and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Frankly, we have never been able to trust state governments of any political persuasion because they are much more concerned with short-term interests and are much more likely to be persuaded by developers. Look at what has happened with the Hinchinbrook Island issue and the proposal by Keith Williams. That has finally gone ahead under this government, but it would not have been stopped by a state Labor government; it would not have been stopped by a state conservative government. It could have been stopped by a federal government because federal governments are supposed to take into account, firstly, their broader responsibilities for doing the right thing by the nation and, secondly, their international obligations.For those two reasons, I find it extraordinary that the Democrats are considering applying the guillotine tomorrow. I just do not understand it. I have many good friends who are Democrats and I know that they are amazed and do not understand what is going on. We all understand pragmatism in politics, we all understand compromise, but we do not understand a complete sell-out and doing a complete about-turn in terms of what people have always believed in.Despite this deal, the Commonwealth has not taken responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, forests, land clearing and water allocation. The disastrous exemptions for thoroughly discredited regional forestry agreements leave the majority of Australian forests unprotected by this law. There are still no guarantees that bilateral agreements which delegate Commonwealth environmental powers to the states will not lead to a race to the bottom in environmental standards. These issues alone mean that this deal cannot be supported. With, I understand, over 400 amendments, I do not see how it is realistic to proceed. Several headlines tell the story pretty effectively: `Australia going a paler shade of green', `A green policy for the unenlightened', and `The deal not good enough for Australia's environment'.There are a number of reasons why the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] is bad for the environment. First of all, it is the biggest rewrite of Commonwealth environmental laws for 25 years. The legislation has major problems which threaten advances in environmental law made over the last two decades. You would think that if you are having a major rewrite of a piece of legislation—any legislation—and it is the major rewrite in 25 years, you would want to take time, you would want to consult and you would want to make sure that any amendments are in the best interests of that piece of legislation.There are five main problem areas with the bill. Commonwealth environment powers are far too narrowly defined. I have no problem with saying, `I don't trust the states.' I do not trust state governments. They are smaller, they are more parochial and are far more likely to act in a self-interested way. I say that of very good state governments. There are and have been very good state governments in Australia. Probably a condition of being a state government is that the pressure is much greater. It is like my experience in local government. It is much harder to make tough decisions in local government because your constituents are hammering down the door. It is much easier to take a more global perspective if you are at a federal level. When it comes to the environment, that is the perspective which should be being taken.Exemptions and discretions do not allow for certainty and provide many opportunities for the Commonwealth to duck its responsibilities. That is something that I find really distressing. This government has twice gone to the people of Australia and said, `We want to lead Australia. We think we know what is good for Australia.' Yet they are prepared to duck their responsibilities in relation to the environment.Bilateral agreements facilitate a handover of Commonwealth responsibilities to the states and, frankly, I do not think any of them can be trusted with them. Ecologically sustainable development is not properly defined or taken into account and provides a poor platform for leadership in setting national standards and protecting the environment. Maybe I am being too tough on state governments, but what an ad hoc approach. Queensland might adopt some very good standards, so might Victoria and South Australia, but what happens if you do not have a national approach? It is an ad hoc approach to environmental management and I would have thought that in the last 20-odd years we would have learnt we need a coordinated, national approach.These are not just the views of environmental groups, the Labor Party and the Greens. I have here a submission to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee by Associate Professor Rob Fowler, Director of the Australian Centre for Environmental Law at the University of Adelaide. In the submission, he goes in great detail to the heart of the legal issues inherent in this change. I quote only a small section of the submission. Under `Commonwealth Constitutional Powers', Professor Fowler says:Relations between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories . . . have at times been acrimonious, particularly where projects being undertaken by or with the support of State governments have been made subject to Commonwealth environmental assessment and approval processes. A dominant theme in this context has been the extent to which the Commonwealth has the constitutional capacity to regulate the environment. Until relatively recently, the prevailing political view within both State and Commonwealth governments was that primary power resided with the States under the Constitution and that the Commonwealth had only a limited capacity . . . This view was expressed first in the late 1960's, when the Senate appointed two Select Committees to enquire into air and water pollution problems in Australia.Much has changed since these reports were provided to the Senate. There have been the historic High Court decisions that I mentioned earlier concerning Fraser Island, the Franklin Dam and the Queensland Wet Tropics. Those decisions indicated that the Commonwealth can, and I would argue should, utilise a suite of constitutional powers, if it desires, to provide a broad legislative coverage of environmental responsibilities. These include the powers with respect to external affairs, trade and commerce, corporations, territories and Commonwealth places.The previous narrow view of Commonwealth powers is no longer tenable. But as with so many issues that we face with this government, they want to go back in time. They are not forward looking. They want to go back to the 1960s and the 1950s. That has always been the hallmark of the Howard influence. He is not comfortable with the 1990s and looking forward. He wants to go back. I believe this is very evident in this particular piece of legislation.This previous narrow view is no longer tenable and should not be being seriously advanced in 1999. Thus it can be said at the outset that there is no substantial constitutional barrier to defining in a broad way the role and responsibilities of the Commonwealth. This is not to say there are no limitations, but simply that there is considerable scope to work within the limitations which do exist. There has emerged in practice, however, a substantial difference between the legal Constitution and the realpolitik Constitution. Despite the High Court decisions which support a wider Commonwealth role in environmental matters, the legacy of the earlier narrow view has been that the states have proceeded to develop extensive legislative and administrative arrangements for environmental management.Obviously, I am not opposed to working with state governments, but I think that our experience of some of the quite horrendous decisions of some state governments in the last 20 years should act as a warning to us that we need that protection power and we need it in a much broader way than has been presented in the bill.The second major concern I would like to cover is the extent to which this bill recognises indigenous concerns, because I believe very little account has been taken of them. I start with indigenous involvement in the development of this bill. Despite the specific centrality of the environment to indigenous people's rights and interests in environmental protection and biodiversity—acknowledged by state, territory, national and international political bodies—the bill has failed to recognise this centrality in the general structure, in the specific provisions or in the process through which the bills were developed. There was negligible involvement of indigenous peoples in the policy and legal development of the two bills.ATSIC, with portfolio responsibility to advise the government on all indigenous issues, was just not consulted. ATSIC only saw a preliminary bill just prior to its tabling in the House of Representatives. In their Senate submission, ATSIC further noted that wide ranging consultations with indigenous stakeholders had not occurred. This has been reiterated by a range of land councils and the Kakadu board of management.This consultation failure not only contravenes the above national and international obligations but is contrary to the coalition's public commitment to inclusive government. For example, the coalition's policy statement for indigenous peoples during the 1996 election provided that the coalition is committed to `developing a political system whereby indigenous peoples participate fully, with their unique contribution recognised and valued by the rest of the community.' That is very easy to say in the lead-up to an election but clearly it is not a priority as far as Minister Hill is concerned. I can accept that Senator Hill has decided that he has not got time or that it is expedient not to have extensive consultations with indigenous people—that is also the hallmark of this government—but what I cannot understand, Senator Bartlett, is how the Democrats can be prepared to turn their back on indigenous peoples and rush this bill through. Surely, if for no other reason, this bill could be delayed for consultation between now and August when the Senate reconvenes.I continue on the issue of international obligations. I would have thought that this government and particularly the Democrats—I do not know if they are part of this government these days; it seems as though they must be—would remember that the committee in Geneva that monitors the elimination of racial discrimination has been extremely critical of this government's policies in relation to consultation and working to protect indigenous people's rights. That is subject to some response by the government at the moment and is likely to go back to Geneva in August and possibly go on to the General Assembly for report in December. This will be yet another example of how the Australian government is absolutely dismissive of its responsibilities under conventions signed.I would like to just detail some of those international obligations. The 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by Australia, recognises indigenous peoples in sustaining biological resources. For example, the preamble recognises the:close and traditional dependence of many indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles on biological resources, and the desirability of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of biological diversity.Articles in the convention reiterate this aspiration. For example article 8(j) provides that each contracting party shall, as far as possible and appropriate:Subject its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement—Senator Bartlett—of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits . . .In relation to sustainable use of components of biological diversity, each contracting party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices . . . The recognition by the Commonwealth, the states and the territories of international obligations is at the moment questionable. The National Strategy of the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity was prepared and agreed to by the then Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and all state and territory Premiers in 1994-95. The strategy aimed to bridge the gap between current activities and the effective identification, conservation and management of biological diversity. I am not sure that this strategy has even been considered in the debate and particularly in the deal that has been done with the Democrats. We will not have time to question whether the strategy is being incorporated and there certainly will not be time for indigenous people to be involved in the process.In conclusion, I urge the Democrats to sleep well tonight, but to think carefully before sleeping well and to wake fresh and determined to come back into this chamber and require the government to (a) take more time in the actual process of debating this bill and (b) refer it back for further consultation with indigenous peoples. I think that is absolutely essential. There are many Australians who have battled for over 30 years to ensure that Australia has a system whereby there is an overriding power of the Commonwealth to protect the environment so that we are not at the mercy of irresponsible state governments. The Democrats should be prepared to seriously rethink these issues and perhaps spend the time between the middle of next week and August consulting widely in the Australian community, consulting their own members who, I know, will be very distressed and disturbed about the Democrats' decision over the last 24 hours. They were unhappy enough about the GST deal, particularly in relation to the diesel fuel rebate, and this will just exacerbate their concerns. In good spirit, I urge the Democrats to rethink this evening.18:15:005963Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Speakers from the Green parties and the ALP have outlined many of the flaws in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] , and the Democrats, of course, are in agreement with the flaws that they have highlighted. We high lighted a couple months ago in our report how deeply flawed this bill in its original form is, and that is why we have needed to move so many amendments. It is probably appropriate that we move on as soon as we can to discussing those amendments so that we can actually start looking at how that has been addressed and how this bill, as amended, will actually lead to a positive outcome for the environment. I certainly will welcome the opportunity to start examining the improved amendments to this legislation rather than rehashing all the problems with the legislation as it stands at the moment, problems which have already been the subject of quite detailed Senate committee reports.Some of the previous speakers put forward the quite legitimate question, `Why the rush on this issue?' I think that is a fair enough question and I am quite happy to acknowledge that up front. The Democrats believe quite genuinely that what we have achieved with the very significant number of amendments to the significantly flawed original bill will lead to a significantly better outcome for the environment now than currently applies under existing law. As a party that has a strong commitment to protecting the environment, we see this as an opportunity to get better environmental protection.Previous speakers have also highlighted some of the many problems that are currently before us in terms of decimation of our environment. We agree and acknowledge—and, indeed, we have played a strong role in highlighting—many of the detrimental actions to the environment that are taking place in our country. And that highlights, all the more importantly, why we need to get improved legislation in place as quickly as possible so that, wherever possible, those negative actions can be prevented.It is also the case, as previous speakers have pointed out—and as the Democrats have often pointed out in this place and outside, and will continue to do so—that the current government, as with the previous government, has not got the best record on the environment. For that reason, we think it is important that there should not be any risk, however small, that the government may change its mind and not join with the Democrats in making these significant advances in environmental protection within this country.If during my time serving in this chamber—however long that may be—I can be remembered for the amendments that are made to this bill and nothing else, I will certainly happily accept that. The Democrats are about getting improvements for the environment in legislation. We are about improved protection for the environment. I want to play a role in achieving that because that is certainly what I am here for.It is important to emphasise the role played by parliament in dealing with legislation. This is not its only role but it seeks to achieve a net improvement in existing legislation, and that is what the Democrats have done. There are clearly areas—we are quite up front about this and we are promoting changes—in which there needs to be further action, and we will be highlighting this as strongly as anybody else. We will be working as hard as anybody else to ensure that further action is taken in those areas.But the Democrats as a party are not going to sacrifice advances in environmental protection because we cannot protect everything now. We cannot protect everything now and we are not going to go forward with nothing.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—The chainsaws are happening now.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—The chainsaws are happening now, under the existing legislation; and if we knock this bill back the chainsaws will keep happening, and we will also lose the opportunity for advancing environmental protection in other areas.It is probably worth saying, and I think it is widely acknowledged, that Senator Brown, prior to coming to this place, had a record out in the community of working to advance the cause of the environment. I certainly acknowledge that. As this is an environmental issue, I feel passionate about it. I acknowledge that he is passionate about it and I wish more people in the country were passionate about it. I would ask him in good faith and good spirit to consider the actual outcome and the purpose of being in the parliament. What is important in relation to this is to ensure that people work together to deliver positive outcomes for the environment.I know from my experience in working with very many people who put in very many hours in the environment movement that that is what they are there for. They are there to ensure that we get positive net gains for the environment, and that is what the Democrats are here in the parliament for. Sometimes you can lose sight of what you are actually in politics for, which is to get positive benefits, and you can be in a situation where perhaps you are tempted to play politics. I would ask Senator Brown, who has now been a politician for a very long time, to perhaps remember what he is actually in politics for, which is to get a better outcome for the environment, and not to simply play politics on an issue.In his speech, Senator Brown criticised a number of people that I am sure he knows well in the environment movement, including some very esteemed environmentalists in Tasmania who have worked strongly to promote his aims on the environment over many years. I would have been surprised if he had wanted to indicate previously that those people are fools, that they do not understand environmental legislation or advance environmental issues. I urge him to look quite genuinely at the motivations of those people who have never been on the Democrats' side, as opposed to a Green party side, and remember why they are in this business as well—and that is to get positive environmental outcomes.Let me emphasise and outline some of the positive outcomes that we have achieved. We have achieved significant improvements on existing environmental legislation that will enable better opportunities for protecting the environment than what we have as the law currently stands. We have a significant number of amendments which will require the minister to have regard to relevant bioregional plans in making a decision under the act, which is clearly an advance on what we have now. We have amendments to require public consultation on a draft of each plan to ensure that bioregional plans reflect the knowledge and interests of local communities within a bioregion—a significant advance on what we have now.We have amendments which will improve on the current listing procedures for threatened species. The flaws that exist in the current law would stay in place if we did not pass this bill. Those who are trying to knock back this bill in its improved form are saying to environmentalists, `We want the current flawed system to stay in place. We do not want these improvements on listing procedures for threatened species.' Categories of threatened species will be expanded in line with internationally recognised categories. These categories include conservation dependent species which have not yet become vulnerable or endangered but could be if relevant conservation programs ceased. This is taking a long-term view of a crucial aspect of better environmental planning. For the first time, vulnerable ecological communities will be listed, as well as critically endangered and endangered communities—not just individual species but the ecological communities surrounding them.The minister will be able to list key threatening processes on the basis of scientific criteria. On current law, a process cannot be listed if it is not feasible, efficient or effective to develop a threat abatement plan for the process. For the first time, with these amendments, there will be a full timetable for the listing process from the point at which a nomination is received, forwarded to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee for advice, and a decision made on listing.The bill establishes an Australian whale sanctuary. This measure maintains what we acknowledge is an area where the government has performed creditably in the past in the leadership in the conservation of whales. We hope that state governments will join in with the mechanism that is now being created by this legislation to add coastal waters under state jurisdiction to the sanctuary. Of course, if they do not, that will not be any reversal of what the current situation is but it again provides the scope for further improvement of the existing situation. There would be a ban on the capture of dolphins for live display, which is something that I am strongly supportive of. It gives it legislative prescription; it actually puts it in force.Strict new liability offences—stricter than what exists under current legislation—will be introduced. This will provide a higher level of protection for those species than currently exists. We will require Commonwealth agencies to ensure that a covenant is put in place when selling or leasing Commonwealth land, to ensure that critical habitat on the register is appropriately protected. This is something that we do not have now; it is something we would lose if we did not allow this legislation to go through. Proposed amendments will reinstate provisions in existing legislation that ensure a high level of public accountability in the issuing of permits.We also recognise the special contribution that indigenous people can make to the conservation of biodiversity. The proposed amendments will ensure that roles and interests of indigenous people will be taken into account in developing recovery plans, threat abatement plans and wildlife conservation plans for protected species—a greater involvement and greater input than what they currently have. There will be greater opportunities for control of non-native species, invasive species, including weeds as well as animals. That will provide opportunities for greater regulatory control than exists under the legislation as it now stands. It will give legislative effect to the government's election commitment of 1998 to establish an alert list of invasive species.There are also issues such as access to biological resources and ensuring that the extensive knowledge of indigenous people over tens of thousands of years about biological resources is employed in research and in the search for natural substances which have potential value in a range of fields, not just environmental value but economic value. The Convention on Biological Diversity recognised the right of parties to control access to their genetic resources and to obtain a fair and equitable share of the benefits arising from those resources. Currently, there is no legislation to enable the Commonwealth to control access to biological resources in Common wealth areas. The bill, as amended, will address this and is a significant advance which we would lose if we walked away from this legislation.The amendments proposed by the Democrats remove a provision in the original bill which gave rise to substantial concern for environmentalists, which is the capacity for conservation agreements to specify activities which would be exempted from normal environmental assessment and approval processes. We have put that back in so that there is no capacity for those activities to be exempted. These requirements provide a tangible mechanism for implementing Australia's international obligations and national objectives relating to indigenous people and biodiversity.For the first time, Commonwealth legislation will explicitly provide for the protection and management of wetlands designated under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance—legislative protection that was not there previously and which we would lose if we walked away from this legislation. Similar provisions apply to world heritage properties. While such properties are currently protected by the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, that act does not adequately reflect Australia's international obligations. The current legislation, which we would be stuck with if we walked away from the improvements that the Democrats have achieved, puts a series of obstacles in the way of the protection of world heritage properties.In contrast, with the amendments and the new features that the Democrats have managed to gain, protective mechanisms available under the bill will apply to all properties. All actions which have a significant impact on the world heritage values of a property will be addressed by legislation—every single action. All the hurdles which are in place under the existing legislation—the hurdles which those who want to oppose the bill want to remain in place—will be removed.The bill provides some significant innovations in the protection and management of Commonwealth reserves. The additional amendments that the Democrats have negotiated to the bill will provide other areas for improved environmental outcomes, and those will be detailed further in the committee stage of the debate when the Democrat amendments are put forward. The list of significant extra advances include provisions enabling conservation zones to be proclaimed to protect biodiversity while an area is being assessed for inclusion.Existing provisions relating to indigenous people's rights to use Commonwealth land for water and hunting have been reinstated. Bilateral agreements will not apply to Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee national parks, which is consistent with the wishes of the traditional owners, as expressed during the Senate inquiry into the bill. All of the Democrat amendments have been achieved in consultation with those environmental and indigenous organisations that have wanted to grasp the opportunity to make forward moves towards protecting our environment—moves which are a great advance over what is in the existing legislation. That is why so many of those groups have supported what the Democrats have achieved in this area.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:005966Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] was always going to be a controversial bill. But as a result of the actions that we have heard about today involving a sordid arrangement entered into between the Democrats and the government, this bill now becomes even more controversial than it otherwise might have been. It has been a matter of some concern to those who have a genuine interest in environmental issues.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Like yourself.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I hear the Tasmanian Liberals casting aspersions upon our interest in the environment. If ever there were a group of people in this country who for their own self-respect needed to remain silent, given their record, it would be the Tasmanian Liberals.The Democrats have for many years sought to demonstrate to this country that they are a new political force. They have claimed to have a greater sense of moral values. They assert time and again that they are a political organisation that rises above the hurly-burly of mainstream politics. They claim that they are out there championing the environment, social justice and a range of other very noble causes in a manner which sets them apart from other political parties in this country. What we have discovered here today is that the Democrats have joined with the Liberals and become, like the Liberals, a party that is quite prepared, as Senator Brown indicated earlier this evening, to sit at the table of power and forget the politics of principle.What we have established tonight is that the Democrats, in their latest capitulation to the demands of the Liberal Party, have surrendered any claim they might have to moral superiority on the question of the environment. What we have established tonight is that the Democrats have become like any other political organisation in this country. They are concerned with the immediate and the practical. They have dispensed with any claim to have an attitude superior to any other political organisation in this country. We have the so-called new party, the Democrats, behaving just like the old party, the Liberal Party.We have been told that their position on the deal they have struck with the government on this highly controversial legislation is supported by a range of conservation groups. We saw on the news tonight the example of a range of organisations supporting the Democrats. They did not tell us that Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society remain strongly opposed to the measures that the Democrats have now engaged in with this government.I am always surprised when Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and others make these sorts of statements because I always look at their record in seeking support for the Liberals. We saw just before the 1996 election a gathering of noted conservationists down at Sherbrooke Forest in Melbourne. They were on TV urging people to support the re-election of the Liberal government. We saw Alec Marr and Mr Downie, who turned out to be a Democrat candidate in a subsequent election, urging that Australia needed a Liberal government because, in their opinion at that time, it is only through a Liberal government that you see strong environmental performance.What have we seen since the Liberals have come into office? We have seen the Natural Heritage Trust established out of the privatisation of Telstra. That involved the destruction of one of our greatest public enterprises. The returns supported a pork-barrelling arrangement to try to buy off green support around this country. We saw how the National Heritage Trust became a rort. This government sought to display its favours around the country in a highly partisan manner.We saw the actions of the government on greenhouse gas emissions. We saw how this Liberal government sought to take upon itself the mantle of strengthening and developing the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu National Park. We saw the devastation of their policies with regard to Hinchinbrook development. Before this chamber now is the proposal to hand back a range of environmental protection powers to the states. We are now seeing the expansion of woodchip exports before the completion of regional forest agreements. All these measures that have been put in place give an indication of the sort of government that the Liberals provide and which the Democrats are now seeking to support. The Democrats are seeking to buttress it via their support of the new measures contained in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill.The Democrats were once able to present themselves as a party of idealists romantically seeking out the truth and seeking to establish a higher plane of political activity. We now have a grubby deal which greatly disappoints the many people who are in erstwhile support of the Democrats. We can expect considerable levels of disruption within the Democrats in the months to come. I predict that quite substantive levels of disquiet will be expressed within the Democrats, particularly in my state of Victoria. I look forward to the public discussion that will inevitably develop about the role of Senator Allison in the negotiation of these arrangements. I look forward to the discussion about preselection in the state of Victoria when Senator Allison comes forward. I am sure that a high level of interest will be shown by rank and file Democrat supporters, who over the years have come to believe the rhetoric that the Democrats are a special sort of political force and a much more idealistic and noble enterprise than could ever be seen in any other part of the country.I am also looking forward to discussions within the New South Wales branch of the Democrats. I am sure that Senator Bourne will enjoy the public attention that will no doubt follow this arrangement as those within the Democrats in New South Wales seek to express their views about the implications of the Democrats' betrayal of principles and the implications of the Democrats turning their back on their established commitments to the environment and social justice questions.This follows on from their craven capitulation to the government on the GST, so I have no doubt that the green coalition of idealists that have made up the Democrats over the years will now start to crumble. That is a great disappointment to me because I think in politics we do need a range of opinions being expressed. I find that a very difficult prospect to have to face—that the Democrats are going to enter into a period of great turmoil as they and ordinary members of the Democrats begin to understand the implications of the arrangements that their leaders have entered into.There are some in the Labor Party who have said to me over the years that the real difference between those on the left and those on the right is that those on the left really do have a deep understanding and know that they will be betrayed by their representatives. I can see why they would think that, and we do have a clear example. The Democrats, who have seen themselves very much on the left of Australian politics, will now have to reassess their role in the political debate in this country because quite clearly they are positioning themselves as a party on the far right of the political divide in this country. I am sure the Liberals will be able to look forward to enjoying the benefits of having such a stable and reliable ally as the Demo crats, because I have no doubt that these pressures will come to bear in all sorts of ways. I have no doubt that, when it comes to the discussion of preference arrangements right across this country, there will be enormous pressure for various political organisations to reassess their attitude towards the Democrats.I can assure you that, in the state of Victoria, I for one will find it necessary to draw to the attention of the people that I mix with the difference between the various parties, their attitudes and the way in which they have performed in the parliament. I think it is important that we do assess the rhetoric and the actions that political parties engage in so maybe these so-called new politicians, the Democrats, can be judged on their record. We can see quite clearly from the example we have before us tonight that the Democrats have once again been found wanting. I have no doubt there would be hundreds of thousands of Australians who, in their sincerity, believed that the Democrats were a different type of political organisation.Senator Margetts interjecting—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—Senator Margetts indicates to me that she is surprised by my expression of opinion on this question. I am sure they do believe in their sincerity that the Democrats were trying to achieve certain things. After all, was it not the political party that said they were going to keep the rest of us honest? But we find in this arrangement that no-one is keeping the Democrats honest. I trust that the rank and file of the Democrats will be able to give full and proper consideration to these questions because I suspect that there will not be an opportunity in this chamber to do that. I suspect that, as part of the grand new alliance between those of the ultra-left of the Democrats and the ultra-right—the tory right—of the Liberal government, there will be an arrangement in place to curtail the level of public examination of these arrangements. I hope I am wrong, but I have a terrible sinking feeling that, deep down, the Democrats do not want a proper discussion of the implications of these arrangements—they do not want there to be public scrutiny of the deal that they have done.The backroom arrangements bring with them great contradictions. The real problem for the Democrats, if I might offer some gratuitous advice on this question, is that you do have to have a bit of experience in dealing with people in power. If you are in a minority and you are seeking to demonstrate a commitment to ideals, you ought to be able to have a resolution, you must be resilient, you must be determined and you must have the capacity to understand the strength of your own position. The Democrats have failed on all these fronts. What has happened, quite frankly, is they have been stood over. They have capitulated. They have allowed themselves to be duchessed. They have allowed themselves to fall into the old trap of being told how important they are and how worthy their contribution is. As a consequence, they have found it necessary to accept compromises and to be flexible in such a way that we have seen them walk away from long held principles.We see in this package before us a situation like we saw with the GST—where for many, many months we were told by the Democrats that they never, ever move on the question of books and the GST. We were told for many, many months there would be a commitment to defend education as a central and important ingredient to which all Australians should have access. The Democrats, with their commitment to those high ideals, found it was necessary to capitulate. Sad as it was, in the interest of good government they had to capitulate. They had to turn their back on their supporters, they had to turn their back on the election commitments they had made, and they had to turn their back on their long held philosophical views about the role of the politician within this chamber. Now we see a miserable and totally inadequate proposition: it was explained to us tonight that the Democrats have delivered. They have delivered all right. They have delivered lock, stock and barrel to the government. They have wound up all their supporters into a nice tight little bundle and delivered them to the tory government. So much for their commitment to the environment; so much for their concern to ensure that there was appropriate and adequate representation for the environmental questions within this chamber.We were told of improvements and expansion of the Commonwealth powers. That is what they are claiming. They no doubt have the government spin doctors working for them these days, because that is the sort of statement that is worthy of Dr Kemp. What you do is hand the powers back to the states, you reduce the level of Commonwealth environmental powers, you make sure the Commonwealth withdraws from its responsibilities, but you announce to the public that you are expanding the Commonwealth's role in terms of environmental protection. All you have to do, in the best traditions of 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World, is to say exactly the opposite to what you are doing; and that is what they are doing here.We have been told for instance is that this is a proposition that has regard to the EPIP Act, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals Act, but it is a proposition that will provide greater certainty—we will see propositions advanced in such a way that Commonwealth action will be proposed with greater certainty. What they do not tell you is that the opportunities for the Commonwealth to get involved will be reduced—they will actually diminish. In a whole range of other issues, the same proposition comes forward.What I am particularly concerned about is the way in which the Democrats have capitulated and abandoned their long held commitments. They have put themselves in a situation, with regard to bilateral agreements, where the most reactionary elements within the state bureaucracies and the state arenas will be able to exercise much greater influence. Those who hold real economic power in this country will have a greater capacity to influence development projects, which are much greater in number at the state level, and they will enjoy greater confidence and greater certainty. And of course they will have the capacity to exercise their will over the will of the majority of Australians.For instance, when it comes to actions in regard to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park—you probably have a greater understanding of these issues, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg—I am told that, up and down the Queensland coast, there are something like 150 major developments ready to roll. Of course, if you withdraw the Commonwealth from any overriding scrutiny of such propositions, there is always going to be confusion about responsibilities of the state government and the Commonwealth government, and it leaves a large gap through which unscrupulous developers can jump. That is essentially a continuation of the policies we have seen in relation to the Hinchinbrook development—policies which have seen this government abrogate its responsibilities and act in a thoroughly negligent way.In my judgment, we ought to have been able to expect a much higher level of commitment and genuine leadership from the Commonwealth government. I see that Senator Hill has just entered the chamber; I am sure he has come in to listen carefully to the comments senators are making about this miserable proposal before the chamber. We ought to have been able to see as a result of this extensive review—propositions which, I fully acknowledge, were begun under a Labor government—initiatives which provide a genuine opportunity to strengthen the role of government, ensure proper protection in environmental questions and ensure the proper protection of Australians' future through an effective use of government power. Under this government, such an opportunity is lost—it is squandered—and it is now fully supported by the Democrats.The Democrats say they can come in here with a few minor amendments, which will make them feel a lot better—and it gives them a fig leaf to be able to suggest that they have had a big impact on policy. They can be told how important they are, how responsible they are, and how they are now at the table and they are important players in the Australian political debate. They have left the fringes of politics but, of course, they have also left their principles and they have left their commitment to the sorts of ideals that they have held for a very long time. They have now sat with a tory government and have been able to exercise what they perceive to be a capacity to set the directions of government. The truth is that they will not set any directions for government, other than those that have al ready been set by the government itself. They have capitulated to the government.What we will see will be a reduction in Commonwealth control over environmental regulation—the extent of which is yet to be determined, but there will be a substantial reduction. We will see the absence of a Commonwealth regulatory framework over matters and, despite the various COAG agreements which have sought to establish important principles with regard to, for instance, climate control and greenhouse gases, we will see a further devolution of Commonwealth control over projects and other Commonwealth decision making processes with regard to bilateral agreements. We will see an agreed process of capitulation; a surrender to the interests of development and to the interests of powerful companies which have the capacity to directly control this government. We will see the absence of effective public participation in key development questions and an extension of broad discretionary powers of the minister in relation to a whole range of issues being presented in this bill.What the government gets out of this is a continuation of its ideological agenda and a winding back of its commitment to participate in civil society and the development of this country in such a way as to ensure proper protections for all the different people who enjoy the fruits of living in this country. We will see this government being legitimised in its drive to abrogate its responsibilities and turn its back on what ought to be a commitment to providing effective legislative and political leadership. (Time expired)19:50:005970Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—In October of this year we are going to celebrate—or at least I imagine some people will celebrate—the 60th anniversary of another deal in the 20th century which was supposed to be the deal to end all deals. I want to ask senators tonight if the name Neville Chamberlain means anything to them. Nev got on his plane and flew all the way to Munich—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Peace in our time?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I will come to that in a minute, Senator. He sold off half of Czecho slovakia and made it pretty clear to the Germans that, if they wanted the rest of it, all they had to do was wait a little while and they would be able to pick it up. Sixty years ago, that deal was consummated in Munich. Nev flew home and the aircraft stopped at, I presume, Heathrow or whatever it was, and he got out and waved a piece of paper. The piece of paper was entitled `Peace in Our Time'.I have always had a bit of sympathy for Nev. After all, he went over there, and about the only aircraft that Britain could scrounge up at the time was the one that carried him to Munich. They did not have much else going for them and they did not have any kind of strength in the deal, and I guess any time the Germans wanted to take Czechoslovakia they could do so. It just so happened that Neville helped them along a bit. In fact, a few months later he loaned them enough money to build an anti-aircraft defence system around Berlin.The absolute puzzle about the Democrats in the last couple of weeks is why they are doing what they are doing. I cannot understand what the strategy is. They were all looking forward to the balance of power. We had Senator Woodley a few weeks ago paying out Senator Bob Brown and telling him he was irrelevant and that pretty soon, starting on 1 July, the Democrats would be calling the shots. I have to tell you that they are doing it before 1 July. In fact, they are doing it so comprehensively, I do not know what tomorrow's deal is going to be. I do not know what they are going to wheel in here next and say, `We've gone around to the Howard government and, boy, have we got a deal for you. We've jumped into bed with the Howard government and we are taking the Prime Minister at his word that he will still respect us in the morning.' The consummation of the deal has taken place—every day there is a new deal—and we are told that they will be respected in the morning.Today's deal, I think, is one of the more interesting ones. At least with the Telstra debate there were a couple of weeks of argument around the place before the guillotine was moved on the whole thing. But this one has just come right out from stage left. We should have really picked it up, I sup pose, earlier today. Once we saw the Democrats voting with the government, as I understand it, on the production of documents, we should have known that this crowd unfortunately have sullied themselves, that they are no longer the virgins in white clothing that they make themselves out to be, that they are the political whores that we find in all sorts of images the public has—DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—I would like to indicate that I object to that use of terminology and the sexual innuendo, and I think they should be withdrawn.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—If I can help you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I think I called them political whores.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—I think you should withdraw that, Senator Quirke.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I do not think I can in this instance. I do not think I have to, unless the Clerk gives other advice on this.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—My advice is that it should be withdrawn, Senator Quirke. I would withdraw.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—It is unparliamentary, is it? Is that the ruling?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, it is; it is a reflection.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Is it? In that case I will take out—is it the word `political' or the word `whores', or both?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think you know what to withdraw, Senator Quirke.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I will withdraw anything that upsets anyone here tonight. I find the deal they have done a staggering one. It is the deal that all fishermen in this country would love: you go out with a fishing rod and you forget the bait, but you do not need it; you just chuck the hook out and the biggest fish jump on it. That is what the Democrats have done. They have jumped on an unbaited hook. I am puzzled as to why they would want to do this. We saw Senator Bartlett on the news tonight with two or three of his close mates saying, `It's really not such a bad deal.' 9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—The environmental groups?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—No, they looked more like his mates, because they had the environment groups afterwards and they were not as pleased; they did not look happy at all. They said that it is really not such a bad deal, that it could have been worse, that in fact the Howard government put up this probably straw man to see if they could get this crowd to jump on the wagon, and that is exactly what they did.I do not understand this. In Neville Chamberlain's case, he did not have much else going for him. But there is no doubt that the Prime Minister will do anything to get his GST up. There is no doubt that this Prime Minister was politically lost a few weeks ago when Senator Harradine said that he could not agree. You should have seen the faces on those senators opposite—they said it all. They knew that the whole agenda was ripped up and burnt in front of them. But, no, not a thing of it: the Democrats came around very quickly.We are yet to see the argument about what point the chicken becomes 10 per cent dearer and we are yet to see how this diesel fuel stuff has been worked out or what other odd idea these people have. I suspect that is what we are going to get. We are going to get a GST bill full of very, very odd ideas from a group of basically very odd people who have gone around and done a deal with Mr Howard and his mob. That deal, no doubt, will be brought in here and I imagine it will be guillotined as well. In fact, I think the party of free speech—no doubt before much longer—will not like listening to too much more of this stuff, and they will gag this one as well. They are going to say they are going to roll those 400 amendments through just like the other night on Telstra. The only difference was that in Telstra I think at the end of the day there were about 20 amendments; this time there are about 400.I think it is rather instructive to have a look at a couple of passages of what the Democrats have had to say on this legislation. I want to draw the Senate's attention to Senator Allison's remarks in the second reading debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill. She said:I want to talk a bit about the consultation.We do, too. To continue:There was very limited time for consultation, initially with regard to the discussion paper and then limited time for the committee to report—that is, the legislative standing committee here in the Senate. She went on:The COAG agreement, which was the source of this legislation, did not involve the public and was quite secretive . . .That is the word I want to home in on—`secretive'. Not only did the COAG process keep it secret from the public, but this process here today has done exactly the same. I suspect that, by the time we finish tomorrow, that secretive process will see a bill go into law. It may be a good bill; it may be bad bill, but I can tell you that it is not going to be a properly scrutinised bill. It is going to be rammed through here by a bunch of people who hawk themselves around at each election saying, `We are different; we are going to keep them honest.' I will not use that other word that has been used here today, because I would probably be asked to withdraw it anyway.At the end of the day, I suspect that there is such a difference here between the way the Democrats talk out there, what they promise at election time, and what they are delivering here today—and what, no doubt, they will deliver here tomorrow and what, no doubt, they will deliver here next week—that in fact this is an enormous break in faith with the electorate. Senator Allison was dead right when she said these processes are secretive. That was on 27 April. I would not have thought that in the short time to 22 June Senator Allison and the rest of her friends would actually have joined in the very process she was complaining about.The other document that has been going around here today reminds me of something like a death warrant. If you look at the death warrant for King Charles I—I think I got mine off a cornflakes box about 30 years ago—you see that it had all the signatures on it as well. I just wonder what sort of political show you are running when you have got to get everyone to sign on the dotted line at the end of a statement. I know they have got a few stresses and strains in there and not everyone is happy with the way things are being run. Quite frankly, when you have got four aces in your hand, why you would want to do a deal between now and next week leaves me puzzled. Is it the case that the Democrats are really not up to or not prepared for having the balance of power, or is there some other explanation? When I look at the document, I find some rather naive statements. One refers to other senators. This document says:At the time the Democrats pointed out this strategy would only be successful if Senators Colston and Harradine gave a commitment to oppose the bill at the "second reading".What they are saying there is that the Democrats were concerned about the role of Senator Colston and Senator Harradine and the fact that they may have voted this bill into legislation over the top of the Democrats.If you have got the Prime Minister by whatever image you want to use, by the hand or by some other part of his body, and indeed you are holding his entire political future in your hand, or in both hands, I would have thought that you could have done a deal on just about anything. I would have thought you could have gone around to the Prime Minister's suite—I have never been there and I think I am unlikely to be invited there, at least for the next couple of years—and knocked on the door and got past the surly guard. I am sure he would have let Senator Lees and company in and they would have made them a cup of tea or coffee or whatever they drink around there. I reckon Senator Lees could have said, `Prime Minister, we have a problem. On that argument that unfortunately we are having about that chicken and how is taxed, it is going to take us till about September to work out which bits of the chicken are going to be 10 per cent GSTable. On the other hand, we have got a lot of time on this environment bill. If we could have that pulled off the agenda until, say, September then we could deal with the GST this week and next week.' The Prime Minister, being such a reasonable fellow and basically being in the tumbrel on the way to his own guillotining, I suspect would have accepted that deal.In fact, I think Senator Lees could have been even more brazen than that. I think Senator Lees could have said, `Look, it is like this. We need to keep faith with those people we have been appealing to for the last 10 or 15 years, the environmental groups. After all, we have got some Green senators who are competing with us for this particular constituency,' and doing a fine job too, I might add. I think Senator Lees could have said to the Prime Minister, `We just want to sort out the GST at this stage. Please don't stick anything else on the agenda.' But, no, we did not get that. We got a very happy Senator Allison and a very happy Senator Bartlett coming in here today and saying, `Boy, have we got a deal for you.' They have even got their photographs on the top of this particular document.The document says that the conservation movement is very happy with these arrangements that they have made. I do not know where they got that information. That would be a first. Some of these groups would not be happy with any kind of deal or arrangement or any of the rest of it. I suspect that the miners will be happy with this arrangement, and the reason is that they are now probably going to have a full swag of what they want. Probably a lot of groups in Australia would be very happy, because they know that ganging up on state governments is a much easier task than ganging up on the national government. That is really what this is all about at the end of the day.This particular document that has come out urges me to read all of the great concessions that these people have made and points out that they have all done a very good job: they have tightened up all the loopholes and this bill is now repaired. Some of my colleagues have said it is not. I would like to say that I might agree with them. It may well be that they have done a reasonable job. I doubt it very much, but I would like probably more than the next 16 hours or thereabouts to have a look at it. I would like to listen to some of the debate on this. After all, what are we talking about? Are we talking about some thing insignificant or are we talking about something that is very significant? Remember the Franklin Dam?5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—I'll say.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Remember the Daintree? Remember a few of the other issues in this country which had to be sorted out at the national level? It may well be that some senators in here, and I hear some voices, say that they are not too happy with the Franklin River being free. I do not know that too many of them would get up and say that publicly. Maybe I am wrong. But I would like those senators, like everyone else, to have the opportunity to get into this debate.What we are seeing develop here is a new political relationship, and that political relationship is just like the old one in the Fraser government. At the end of the day, that is where the Democrats came from. No, they were not a bunch of people in caftans then, sitting around in a circle singing Kumbaya. They were in there with the Fraser government because most of them could not get preselection within the Liberal Party. I can give you a few names if people want me to. Right up until 1983 and 1984 these guys were on the right. Did they have a good industry policy? I remember the former Senator Siddons in here with his industry policy. He was advocating the sorts of reforms Mr Reith advocates years before Mr Reith even thought about them.Then in 1984 you had Mr Garrett and Midnight Oil and suddenly the Democrats became left of centre. They had a very sudden change in their politics; they changed overnight. They became the left wing conscience of the Labor government for the next 13 years. They hawked themselves out there as the great greenies. They hawked themselves out there as the ones that were going to make sure proper process was developed—transparency, no secrecy. They got the balance of power back and a couple of weeks before they actually get it they have jumped into bed with the government. They are practising for what is going to come.What we saw here this afternoon when they voted against documents being produced to this chamber should tell everybody to what lengths some of these people will go to achieve their own ends. They used to tell everyone that they were different—that they were not like other politicians. Well, they are not. There are a lot of politicians around here who believe in open government, who believe that process should be fully adopted, who believe that deals like this ought to be much more accountable and out there in the public domain and who believe that these sorts of things should not happen.I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that, at some stage when somebody finally works out which bit of the chicken is going to be taxed and which bit is not, we are going to have a gag motion on this bill and on all the amendments that are floating around on it and, I suspect, on any other bill that suits the Prime Minister before we get up on 30 June.I cannot understand why the Democrats are in such a hurry on this particular issue. After next Wednesday they are the only group the government or, for that matter, the opposition can deal with to achieve certain legislative ends. Possibly, they wanted to jump in there quickly in case a couple of others, namely Senator Harradine and Senator Colston, beat them to it. But it tells us how fragile this GST deal is and that it may not even last the next few weeks. It tells us what problems there are in their own show. We will look with interest to see what deals emerge in the next 24 to 48 hours.20:10:005974Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Before I begin my formal contribution, I would like to concur with some of the comments made by Senator Quirke. One thing that is levelled continually against us on this side of the chamber by the government is the experience that many of us have, including you, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg, in the trade union movement and in negotiations with employers and industry groups and so on. In many conversations in Tasmania over the last couple of weeks I have had cause to reflect that I do not think the Democrats would have lasted five minutes in the union movement in terms of negotiation. I have had people say to me on the GST bill, `Why didn't they hold out for more? Why did they cave in so early?' The answer is that I do not know. Normally in politics you do know, you can articulate what the reason is, but I genuinely do not know why they folded so early. In terms of negotiating, I do not think they would make it past shop steward 1 at the old Clyde Cameron college.Senator Bartlett made some interesting comments prior to the dinner break. I accept that he was genuinely concerned that the government might change its mind on this bill if it were deferred for consideration until later in the year. As Senator Quirke quite correctly pointed out, it does indicate the fragility of the relationship in that clearly the Democrats mistakenly think they have only one ace in their hand, and that is the GST legislation, so they need to extract these commitments in relation to the GST legislation in order to get through the modifications that they believe rectify the many difficulties in this bill. But the reality is that from 30 June they are in the ultimate powerful position. The government is going to want a lot of things from the Democrats. We have the second wave of industrial relations legislation coming through, maybe as early as next week, and the government is going to want to have a talk to the Democrats about the second wave as well.I hope the Democrats have had a rethink on that. I hope that they do not accede to the draconian legislation that Minister Reith is putting forward but, as Senator Quirke said—and I think correctly—we do have a major shift happening in the political paradigm in Australia, in that what was for a very long time a left of centre party is moving to the right in political terms. That happened with the GST and it is now happening with this environment legislation.I suspect it is a bit like when you first become a swinging voter. When you first break that traditional pattern and stop voting Liberal, Labor, Democrat, Green or whatever, you are basically a swinging voter for life. That is what is happening in politics these days and that is what concerns me—that we do have this major shift in the political paradigm with the Democrats and we may see a continuing lurch to a more conservative party. But I am here to talk about local governments, and I would like to say that this bill has been the subject of serious concern by a number of groups, a fact which has been raised by a number of people today. One of those groups is local government, which I do not think has got a mention to date. Local government is not just another lobby group, and I am not casting any aspersions on lobby groups at all. Local governments are actually involved in the delivery of services with regard to the environment, so they have a vested interest in relation to this, and they have direct responsibility for many of the environmental services that are delivered within our community.Local governments play a significant and critical role. They are responsible for local planning and environmental management, standards of land management, conservation of native vegetation including off-reserve conservation, rehabilitation of degraded areas, urban conservation, eradication of weeds, pollution control and, of course, greenhouse gas reduction. All of those are the responsibility of local governments and they are responsible for delivering these programs to the community.On this side of the chamber, we in the Labor Party have long regarded—and I think this is empirically proven—local government as a partner with the Commonwealth government across a range of policy issues. We have a long history of working with local government on national policy and, of course, it was Labor that first introduced Commonwealth funding for local government in 1973. Labor have always believed in—and in 1988 sought—constitutional recognition for local government, which was vehemently opposed by the current government, in particular Minister Reith, in the referendum.We have also recognised local government's important role in the environment. In 1995, when Prime Minister Keating signed the first—and so far only—partnership agreement between the Commonwealth and local government, the Local Government Accord, the Labor Party formally recognised the vital role of local government in environmental management. That accord, which was a state ment of principles and shared goals that would be pursued by the Commonwealth and local government in partnership, explicitly included a commitment to the protection of the environment and a recognition of local government's pivotal role in relation to that. In his speech to the National General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association, the then Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said:In all but a few areas of Australia's public life, the decisions of Local Government—and the quality of those decisions—help determine our progress . . . It is most certainly the case with protection of our natural environment. I welcome your commitment—that is, the local government representatives'-to the protection of the environment. The Accord provides for an integrated approach to planning and development and to appropriate involvement in areas like waste management, sewerage, stormwater treatment—issues crucial if we are to look after our rivers and our coasts.That is quite correct. That historic accord, which, I might add, has completely dropped off the agenda of this coalition government, included as one of the shared principles underpinning the agreement `safe-guarding environmental quality and promoting ecologically sustainable development'. Schedule 4 of that agreement dealt specifically with environmental management and the view of the Keating Labor government was made very clear in that schedule:The Commonwealth will:support participation by Local Government as a partner in the development and implementation of national strategies in which Local Government has a legitimate interest by virtue of significant statutory responsibility or financial commitment and. . . promote and enhance the role for Local Government in the implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment.This government, by contrast, regards local government with disdain. It does not recognise local government as a partner of the Commonwealth and repeatedly demonstrates its failure to grasp the role of local government in building our communities and in maintaining and protecting the environment. How often have we heard coalition members, particularly on Senate committees but also in here, describe local government as a creature of the states? That is something which strikes horror, I must say, into the hearts of most councils.I note that, despite local government's significant role in environmental protection, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, has not bothered to participate in this debate and has said absolutely nothing about local government's role in respect of this legislation. Let us not forget that this is the government that tried to palm off any semblance of a working relationship with local government by handing local government funding over to the states. In fact, Senator Macdonald tried essentially to do himself out of a job as minister for local government. I understand he was looking forward to a continuing—I will not say illustrious—career in other portfolios once he had managed to rid himself of this one and was utterly devastated by the arrangement with the Democrats in terms of the retention of local government.In the end, of course, we saw the deal and we saw that the government was forced, kicking and screaming, by the Democrats to retain Commonwealth responsibility for local government funding—not graciously and not with any real commitment to strong and effective local government. One thing this federal government fails to grasp is that local government is elected; it is actually elected to represent a constituency much as people in this chamber are but probably more equitably in many senses.So it comes as no surprise that this bill contains no mention of local government and fails to recognise the responsibilities and regulatory powers of local government with regard to environmental management. It also fails to recognise local government's role in implementing national environment policies at a local level. Local government has been gradually and quite deliberately excluded from the process in the development of this bill. Its concerns have been ignored and once again it finds itself at the mercy of the states. This is something that Senator Hill did not mention in his answer to Senator Bolkus today in relation to exactly what the role of local government has been in the development of this bill.Local government over the past 20 years has taken a greater and greater role in environmental management and the implementation of national policies at a local level. Only seven months ago, the National General Assembly of the LGA endorsed a national local government biodiversity strategy. Local government worked very hard, in partnership with the states and the Commonwealth, to develop a formal strategy to preserve and protect Australia's biodiversity. It is somewhat ironic that local government took a national approach to biodiversity and environmental management at the very time that the Commonwealth was seeking to reduce its national responsibilities for the environment and shove them off to the states. That is absolutely ironic.At the same time, the general assembly also adopted a unified approach to coastal management. Both these strategies are built on local government's national approach to the environment and its adoption of national policies on climate change and waste management in 1997. In a media release from the ALGA president, Councillor Campbell, he reaffirmed the need for cooperation on environmental matters between all three spheres of government. He said:But local government cannot achieve sustainability on its own. What we need is effective and meaningful cooperation between all spheres of government to meet these important environmental objectives.The national local government coastal management policy identifies the issues which constrain the involvement of councils in coastal management, and outlines the principles which we believe are central to an effective intergovernmental coastal management regime.Similarly, the national local government biodiversity strategy, which was unanimously approved, has agreed that biodiversity conservation become a mainstream function of local government subject to adequate resourcing.That is a caveat that needs to be there. He continued:It recognises that the Commonwealth and state governments cannot achieve these agendas on their own because local government is generally respon sible for planning and development control functions.That is correct. He went on to say:The strategy identifies the steps that need to be taken, the indicative costs and advocates partnership with the Commonwealth and state governments, to ensure our diverse biological heritage is protected and managed sustainably.The Australian Local Government Association has raised some key concerns about the bill in submissions to the Senate committee and in an appearance before that committee. Key, of course, among those concerns is the failure of the bill to recognise the roles and responsibilities of local government as an environmental manager and often as the enforcer of environmental standards. It omits any requirement for preparation of statements and adequate consultation by state governments with local government in the preparation of bilateral agreements.Local government, through the ALGA, was a full member of the intergovernmental committee for ecologically sustainable development until it was abolished by this government in 1998, and local government was a signatory, through the ALGA, to the intergovernmental agreement on the environment. It was actively involved in the review of roles and responsibilities in the environment. It was that review that was to result in the development of the heads of agreement which would foreshadow amendments to the IGAE, and forms the basis of this bill.ALGA pointed out in its September 1998 submission to the Senate committee that `the failings of the heads of agreement are reflected in this bill'. I understand that the heads of agreement still has not been signed by all the states. I also understand that local government's concern about the conduct and outcome of the so-called consultation process—and this has had a wide airing in the second reading debate speeches—that has resulted in this bill is so great that ALGA has also refused to sign the heads of agreement. ALGA in its submission expressed disappointment at the failure of the review to recognise local government as a partner of the Commonwealth, states and territories in environmental management. In fact, the submission stated:Regrettably, the review failed to address its task in the holistic way envisaged by the terms of reference, focussing instead on a limited number of intergovernment issues which might be characterised as Commonwealth-state demarcation disputes.There we have it. The submission went on to say:The review failed almost completely to address local government issues, again despite its terms of reference and despite a specific request by ICESD that the review consider the 1996 COAG resolution.That COAG resolution, which arose out of the 1995-96 review of the IGAE, stated:. . . ICESD examine and report on ways to ensure that the role played by local government in environmental management receives increased recognition and better implementation in terms of the agreement and that local government's role and involvement in processes to progress the objectives of the IGAE are clarified.Local government, which was so actively involved in the beginning of the so-called consultation process which has led us to this debate today, has been gradually and not so subtly excluded by the Commonwealth and the states—the Commonwealth particularly. According to the ALGA submission, ALGA in 1997 did at one stage endorse the heads of agreement in principle, with two caveats: firstly, they would include a positive reference to the future implementation of the resolution on the need to enhance local government's role in the implementation of the IGAE; and, secondly, relevant schedules would require the states to consult with local government and prepare statements setting out the implications for local government.The submission then went on to explain that, since the 1997 COAG meeting, further discussions took place between the Commonwealth and the states—I think Senator Hill mentioned those today—but this time without local government, without the ALGA. As a result of those discussions, ALGA believes that local government's role was watered down significantly. At the general assembly in November last year, local government representatives from across Australia endorsed a motion that called for local government to be included in the legislation and to be consulted. That motion called on the federal government:. . . to ensure that the role of local government in environmental management is appropriately recognised in the proposed new Commonwealth environmental legislation. In addition, this legislation needs to ensure that state-territory governments must enter into subsidiary agreements with the relevant state-territory local government association regarding implementation.The ALGA is a cross-representation of not only local government but also the community. It is certainly not a front for any political party. It is very independent minded. But that was the ALGA's view on this legislation. Despite local government's numerous representations and repeated calls for recognition, there is no mention of local government in this bill. As I said before, despite the plethora of environmental activities that local government has to carry out, there is not one mention of it in this bill. Once again it has been completely ignored by the federal government. More importantly, I think the federal government has failed to recognise local government's contribution to national wellbeing and the environment in particular.I will conclude as I started, with the Democrats. The Democrats should not think they are off the hook either on this disgraceful piece of legislation. I know that my colleagues have traversed that adequately. We have not yet had the opportunity to closely examine the Democrats amendments to this bill. If any belief is to be placed in Senator Bartlett's implicit threat before the dinner break of a guillotine—he exhorted the Senate to hurry up and get onto the consideration of the amendments—we will not get the opportunity for proper scrutiny. Let us not forget what the Democrats said in their local government fact sheet for the 1998 election:Democrats' policy is to . . . treat Local Government as an equal partner with Federal and State Government in both the development of major national programs and reform processes.I will wait with great interest to see whether the Democrats remembered local government when they did their deal with the government on this bill, or will it be a repeat of the tax deal where the Democrats promised so much and delivered so little?Local government deserves a fair go and deserves recognition. It was involved in the process up until very recently and then deliberately excluded in relation to that process. It has to be involved. It should be recognised in this legislation because of the services that it provides and the fact that it is a democratically elected sphere of government which deserves to be regarded as in partnership with the states and the Commonwealth government. As I said at the beginning, it is a sad indictment that there is no mention at all of local government in this legislation.20:30:005979Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I begin by picking up on the closing remarks of my colleague Senator Mackay with respect to the Democrats' policy on local government. It would appear that, by virtue of their actions over recent weeks and particularly this week in regard to their approach to the legislation before this chamber, they intend to drag local government down to the same level at which this government treats the responsibilities of both federal government and state government. That would be a disaster.The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] will have a significant impact in this country, not just in the immediate future but in years to come in the next millennium. Unfortunately, the significant impact it will have will not be one which enhances national responsibility and national protection of the environment. Rather its significance will be that it will mark the point where the national government wound back the clock on responsibility for the environment and for heritage.This is a government which looks backwards. We have a Prime Minister who looks back to the 1950s and the 1960s, a time which he thinks was a golden era in Australia. He longs for those days and makes no secret of it. Unfortunately, he translates that view about this great nation into many areas of public policy and responsibility of his government. We have seen it in health and education and we are now seeing it in the environment. This Prime Minister longs to devolve responsibility back to the states in important areas such as the environment where we have man aged to bring about consistency and uniformity in the national interest and in the interests of the globe.This legislation will undo all of the effort undertaken over the last 16 years across the political spectrum in order to protect our environment, our native flora and fauna and our national heritage. It will certainly undermine the national interest. The basis upon which this government puts forward this legislation is contained in the second reading speech of the minister, particularly with respect to the references to the COAG agreement. In that speech the minister said:The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] implements the COAG agreement. In doing so, it provides the framework for a more effective national approach to environmental management, ensuring resources are focused on delivering better environmental outcomes at all levels of government. The Commonwealth's role in this national approach will, for the first time, be clearly and logically defined.The bill will replace five existing Commonwealth Acts—the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Whale Protection Act 1980 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.That is a very noble statement. It would be wonderful if it were true but, of course, it is not. Shortly I will demonstrate why not. In what can only be the height of hypocrisy, the speech goes on to say:As a result of the previous Labor government's neglect, the Commonwealth's environmental law regime has not evolved to keep pace with the rapid advances in environmental management.If you look at the paragraph which I quoted a moment ago, you will see the five existing Commonwealth acts that will be replaced by this bill. In just about every case, they are bills that were passed by Labor governments—the Whitlam government and the Hawke and Keating governments. As everyone in this country knows, it was the Labor governments at the national level which finally took a stand on the big environmental issues facing this country in the 1970s and particularly in the 1980s.I hear Minister Vanstone laugh as she enters the chamber. Where was the minister when the Franklin Dam was proposed to be built? Which federal government was it that took on the state government in Tasmania, irrespective of whether it was a Labor government or a Liberal government? It was the Hawke Labor government that took on that issue in the national interest, won it and used Commonwealth powers under the external affairs powers to stop that disgraceful project. It was a project which everyone today recognises should never have been on the drawing board. What was the reaction to the coalition parties at that time? They ran off to the High Court and challenged the Labor government's use of the external affairs powers and other powers to stop that project.It was the same attitude that they adopted to some of Gough Whitlam's earlier legislation, particularly with respect to ensuring appropriate control by a national government over our offshore waters. The first chance that they could get they were off to the High Court to challenge the use of national powers in that regard. Each of the pieces of legislation replaced by this bill, with the exception of one, was passed by a Labor government. And the minister has the hide to allege neglect by a previous Labor government!When we were seeking to put those pieces of legislation into law, when we were seeking to protect the Daintree, the Franklin River, the forests of the Lemonthyme, Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef, what was this mob on the other side trying to do? Stop us at every turn. Premier Bjelke-Petersen took us to the High Court. God knows what would have happened if he had had his way. There would be oil-drilling rigs up there now on the Great Barrier Reef. That was the policy that he supported. Yet you have the hide to come into this parliament and say that you are somehow fixing up neglect by previous governments. What an absolutely ridiculous allegation to make.What you are also doing is, as I said, continuing a philosophy that your Prime Minister is hell-bent on, and that is to reduce, as much as possible, national responsibility for the big issues. We have seen his failure on issues such as indigenous affairs, when the coalition parties did not like the decisions of the High Court so they tried to subtly undermine them—indeed, at the end of the day, they were not so subtle. Again, they wanted to devolve more responsibility to the states in that area.They have done the same thing in health by cutting funding across the board: `Oh, this is a job for the states to look after,' they say. It is the same with education: `Oh yes, we'll let the states do it. That is their responsibility.' It is similar with regional development. The previous minister for regional development in this government said that there is no place for the national government in the area of regional development. What an attitude to adopt in 1999 to the great issues that affect regional areas across this country, many of which involve environmental degradation. Of course, we are seeing it again in this area of the environment.I concede that there is a need to get some uniformity in the environmental laws that apply. But we also know that we are faced with certain constitutional difficulties. Firstly, there is the situation that the Commonwealth does not have a direct head of power to intervene to protect the environment.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—Neither do the states.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Margetts intervenes and says `Neither do the states.' Of course, we know that one of the difficulties is that it is the states that essentially have control of land management in this country. As I reported earlier with respect to some of the issues that were prominent in Gough Whitlam's time—including disputes over the control of territorial waters—this government wanted to give those powers back to the states. And we have had to rely upon the external affairs powers. We have had to rely on the powers over export and import, and over corporations, in terms of some of these activities as well. So there is a need to try to codify the law. But the bill that has been put before this parliament does not do anything of the sort; it actually represents a complete abrogation of responsibility. It hands back to the states essentially unfettered control.Whilst there may be provisions in the bill which refer to areas of national heritage, we need to consider the bill in detail. Hopefully, if we get sufficient time and the guillotine is not applied again, those deficiencies will be exposed. As Senator Bolkus outlined in his opening remarks on behalf of the opposition, there is a plethora of areas where this bill is deficient and where all we have is mealy-mouthed words and very little by way of substance in terms of the Commonwealth being prepared to positively and directly intervene to protect the environment—a position that we were always prepared to adopt when it was in the national interest. The other point that I wanted to make in reference to the COAG agreement is that the government says that it bases this legislation upon the Commonwealth heads of government agreement. Yet it was in that process that some 30 areas of national significance were identified by the Commonwealth and the states as requiring specific reference, specific identification. But this legislation identifies only seven such areas. None of the substantial areas such as climate change, greenhouse gases, soil salinity, air quality, inland water pollution, land degradation and forest management is directly addressed in the legislation. There is a huge void in what this legislation spells out in respect of those areas of national significance on which this government and future federal governments would be prepared to take action. There is little detail on the bilateral agreements proposed between the various levels of government. Senator Mackay, as I said earlier, has referred to the fact that local government is not even mentioned. Yet local government increasingly has a role in respect of environmental protection. After all, local governments exercise many of the planning laws around this country.I can recall a major dispute only a couple of years ago on the north coast of New South Wales where there was a proposal from the Liberal government under Mr Greiner, and then under Minister Fahey, to locate a sewerage plant at what is called the Look-At-Me-Now Headland near Coffs Harbour. That was supported by the National Party and it was supported by local government interests up there. Fortunately, the community and later the NSW ALP government recognised what an absolutely absurd and disgraceful proposal that was and stopped it. That area is now on the edge of the Solitary Islands Marine National Park, but they wanted to stick a sewerage plant right on the headland.That is the sort of activity that has to be able to be stopped. One could go on and on, as other speakers have identified, regarding all those areas of macro significance, such as the Daintree and the Franklin Dam. One could talk about the very many other areas that are very important, that may not be on the national spectrum in terms of their environmental significance but that still need to be protected.These bilateral agreements really would be a bit of a sham. There is little room for public consultation and involvement in conservation agreements. We have seen the attitude that this government has adopted to public consultation. They have allowed for very little public input in respect of their decision to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. When requests are made under freedom of information legislation for material as to how some of these decisions were arrived at, `Sorry,' the government says, `it is cabinet-in-confidence, and we can't tell the public about that.' One could point to a range of similar instances. The Hinchinbrook proposal in Queensland is another that comes to mind. And, of course, Senator Bolkus particularly drew attention to the disregard for the rights of indigenous people under this legislation.Unfortunately, this legislation continues a sorry tradition of this government in abrogating its responsibilities at the national level. Of course, that is their approach. As I said, they cut funds to the states and then they say, `You look after that area,'—whether it be health, education or family services. They cut the funding to that reputable organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, which has come out and slammed the Democrats for getting into bed with the government with respect to this legislation. Frankly, handing back direct responsibility in so many areas to the states is a prospect that I tremble at, given the sorry record of many state governments in the past on this issue.I conclude by referring to that rather overused word in the political lexicon, `vision'. We hear references to `vision' all the time and, in many cases, I have to concede that it is inappropriately used and overused. But if there is one issue where one can legitimately talk about governments needing vision it has to be in the area of environment and in the protection of our environment and heritage, because that is the legacy that we leave for future generations.Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister, as I said, who believes that vision is irrelevant, that we have to look back and not forward. I notice that Senator Quirke in his remarks referred to Neville Chamberlain, a man who I do not think could be described as having a terribly good concept of vision. I am actually reminded of the closing words of The Great Gatsby, where Fitzgerald wrote:And as I sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby's wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy's dock.. . . . . . . . .Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further . . . And one fine morning—So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.John Howard is rowing the boat and taking us back into the past, and the Democrats are in there with him. It is a pity that they have taken that step. I ask them to get out before it too late.20:49:005982Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Earlier this evening Senator Bob Brown said that the action of the Democrats was a disgusting sell-out in respect of the environment. I can only echo those words strongly, because that is precisely what it is. Those from my side who have preceded me this evening in the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] have clearly shown that the Democrats have no understanding of what negotiations are about and what is required to get a deal where you are in a win-win situation—because in this case there is no doubt that, for the second time around, they are in a win-loss situation.The first major stumble that they had was with the first wave of the so-called industrial relations. We have had even Senator Murray stand up in this place and complain about the fact that they were dudded and taken to the cleaners, and that they did not realise what their negotiations were about and what they were agreeing to. I think that is the outcome of what we see before us here tonight. I do not believe that the Democrats really understand what they have done.The second bad deal that they made was with the GST. The deal with respect to the legislation now before us brings up No. 3, and so they have got the trifecta—and that is nothing to be extremely happy about, even if you were a punter. Of course, they have taken the odds here and they have lost. They have deserted their own constituency—and that has been clearly brought out by my colleagues who have spoken in this debate. They, who are the great ones to get out there and claim that consultation is necessary and imperative and that there is a great need to consult with not just peak organisations but also the great amorphous mass out there, have deserted those people that they claim to represent and that they claim to in some way represent in this chamber. They have absolutely abrogated their responsibility to those people in nothing but the worst of ways, because they have taken a decision which will affect dramatically the outcome for the future of the environment of this nation.My friend Senator Quirke alluded to the fact, quite clearly, that Senator Lyn Allison had complained about the secrecy of the COAG agreement on 27 April, and yet here we are on 22 June and any problems with the secrecy that surrounded the COAG agreement seem to have completely evaporated. Of course what has happened in the meantime, in becoming part of the process, is that she has cut herself and her party off from the consultative process with those people which they so ably claim to represent.I have had some experience in this parliament on the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee. At the behest invariably of the Democrats I became involved in a number of references on environmental matters. To that end, I have a great interest in the environment; always have had. Many people would be surprised at the very good track record I have on the environment at a federal level.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—You may well say that: I could not possibly comment.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I will divulge it for you later, Senator Margetts. I participated in an inquiry on marine and coastal pollution. I participated, in part, in an inquiry into the Hinchinbrook project. I participated in a reference committee hearing in the early stages of this bill, before it ended up at the legislation committee. I have had the pleasure of travelling to many parts of Australia with those inquiries. One of the significant parts of those inquiries was that wherever one went one found that the Democrats had lined up a number of witnesses to appear before the inquiry. That is fair enough—all the parties line up witnesses, but the Democrats were particularly energetic, particularly emphatic about having their constituent groups appear before the committee and have their voice heard as part of a broader consultative process.Of course, I listened to all of these groups and had the opportunity to question them. At the end of the day what we found was that these people were satisfied that they had been heard. They had been consulted. Of course, this was undoubtedly the major thrust of many of these inquiries as far as the Democrats were concerned. They would line up their supporters and where their supporters had to register outrage they did. There is no doubt that the Democrats carefully stage-managed the appearance of their colleagues, of their fellow travellers, at the various venues, and for that I give them credit.Nonetheless, when it comes to a most important issue of an environmental nature before this parliament, a major bill, what do we find? Without any consultation at all, as best as I can understand, the Democrats go down the path of deserting their constituency and go straight to a sweetheart deal with the government. How the supporters of the Democrats must feel used and prostituted by the process of the Democrats, who have offered them so much but, in effect, delivered them so little. At the end of the day, the Democrats have been found to be wanting and this is highlighted by the deal that has been consummated with the government on this environment bill.I have a practical concern rather than an emotionally driven concern, as I perceive a number of the Democrats have. The Democrats have run their race on emotion and have been found wanting when it comes the practicalities of this legislation. There is no doubt that this legislation is nothing more than a great number of words put together by some spin doctor but, at the end of the day, it will have very little or no practical effect because it takes away the influence and the power and the right of the Commonwealth government to have an overarching role and say in environmental matters. What we will see as a result of this bill are lower standards rather than higher standards.If one turns to the second reading speech, one finds that it is at odds with the so-called direction that the federal government are stating that they want us to take, and that their partners, the Democrats, want us to take in this area. I refer to the fourth paragraph of the second reading speech, which says:Over the last two years, the Federal Coalition Government has worked co-operatively with the State Governments to identify the reforms needed to produce a more effective and efficient national approach to environmental management.Note the words `national approach'. That is the focus of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] . Further down in the next paragraph it repeats a similar sentiment where it says:In doing so, it—`it' being the bill—provides the framework for a more effective national approach to environmental management.In two paragraphs we get hit with the concept of a more effective and efficient national approach and the words `provides the framework for a more effective national approach'. Of course, the very last thing that this bill does is give a national approach. It abrogates national responsibility. It takes away the responsibility of the federal government. It reduces the responsibility of the federal government and tries to push the power and responsibility back to the states.In my view, that is the complete opposite of where this bill should be heading. As I understood the original Democrats position, it is the complete opposite of their view. From what I understand of their early position in this bill, they have done a complete about-face. Everything seems to be heading in the direction of the state government. As some of my colleagues quite clearly alluded to here earlier this evening, the track record of state governments is not good, particularly if you come from a state such as mine, the state of Queensland, where we had a conservative government for many years under the rule of the Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen as Premier. The more you could knock down, the more trees you could remove and the more land you could clear, the more you were rewarded. As one of my colleagues said, we would have had mining rigs on the Barrier Reef had it not been for other circumstances taking place.There is no doubt that going down the path of handing the power to the state governments is not a good way to be going. Their track records leave a lot to be desired. This has come out in a number of inquiries I have participated in with the Senate Environment References Committee. A genuine concern for our environment has been expressed by many interested people, not just the so-called greenies, that state government can be too reckless in its capacity to handle the issue of the environment.It was expressed loudly and clearly on numerous occasions that the issue was best left with the federal government. State government is seen as being preoccupied with business initiatives, development projects and employment generation. Some of those things of themselves are not bad; they are not wrong. However, when you have them and the environment is either being pushed out the back door or is not being given even anything near an equal rating in decisions, one has governments totally preoccupied with a make or break attitude to development at all costs and the attitude `hang the environment'.In the second reading speech, we heard about the so-called national approach. However, the bill requires the powers to go back to the state. If the powers go back to the state, what will we end up with in the states and territories? We will have six states, two territories and eight agendas. We are not going to have one national agenda. If the Democrats think otherwise, they have pipe dreams. There are various demands in the various states. They might be based on their coastal nature or their rural or regional nature or on tourism or general demographics. We are not going to see a national approach in any way.The opening few paragraphs of the second reading speech on this bill claim to have identified reforms to produce a more effective and efficient national approach to environmental management. However, it produces nothing but a diverse range of views that will be at least eightfold. By the time you include in the equation the influence of the various local government areas, you will probably find a real grab-bag of environmental agendas in the various states. Far from having a national approach, we will have a very diverse approach.The explanatory memorandum refers to a number of matters of national environmental significance that will impact on the involvement of the federal government. It is interesting to read division 1 on page 21 of the explanatory memorandum:This Division applies to an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on one or more of the matters of national environmental significance.That is fine; they are nice words. As I said earlier, this has been put together by the word spin doctors. What construction is to be put on `significant impact'? What is of significant impact to one is of no impact to another. What is of importance to one group has absolutely no meaning elsewhere. It goes on:The matters of national environmental significance are—and it gives a broad listing. World heritage properties can be reasonably defined, as can Ramsar wetlands of international importance. I would like to see the definition of `nationally threatened species and communities'. `Migratory species protected under international agreements' is reasonably defined.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Which migratory species?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Yes.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Are we protected?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—You're not protected, Senator George Campbell. The Commonwealth marine environment is generally three nautical miles from the coast, and any additional matter specified by regulation can be added only after consultation with the states. That to me is a very minimalist position at best—a very narrow position—because it is wide enough to drive a battleship through. When one considers that the environment knows no boundary at all, one can see the types of impacts by which the federal government can become involved being relatively meaningless indeed. If one looks at the northern Pacific starfish problem in the Derwent River at Hobart—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—As one would.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Yes, as one would. I am happy to take that interjection and I am glad to see you are right with me on the northern Pacific seastar, Senator Vanstone, because one knows that the inquiry I participated in some 18 months ago saw this fairly well confined to the Derwent River. I understand that the seastar has now moved beyond that area. It has moved into waters in southern Victoria and also further round into shores closer to South Australia. It knows no boundaries; it knows no laws. It is a national problem.Does it have a significant impact? Does it come under the significant impact that would require the federal government to become involved? It is very much open to question. There is no doubt in my mind that the agenda that is being set here is one that will see a lot of blurred edges—there will not be clearly defined involvement by the federal government when it is needed and as it is required. The vast majority of people in this nation are simply untrusting of state governments—they do not trust the state governments in these areas. (Time expired)21:09:005985Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] was most aptly described tonight on one of the news programs—I think it was on the ABC's PM program—as `a start of the race to the bottom in environmental standards'. I think that was a very apt description of this legislation. It is another piece of Prime Minister John Howard's back to the future vision for this country—another piece of hankering for the past, to take things back to where they were: relaxed and comfortable in the 1950s.It is a bit sad when you look at some of the material that has been produced over the past couple of days, particularly the press release that the Democrats put out today, under a photograph of all seven, headed `Democrats deliver expansion of Commonwealth environmental powers'. They said:For reasons of politics rather than policy, the ALP and the Greens declared that the bill was beyond repair.They also went on to say:All up, we didn't get everything, but we got very close. WWF estimates we addressed about 85% of the concerns of the environmental movement in our amendments.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—Is that the Waterside Workers Federation?NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—No, I think its the World Wildlife Fund. To continue:The Queensland Conservation Council declared that the Democrats `did an excellent job'. Other environment groups are also impressed.Who are these other environmental groups? I heard Senator Allison today, when addressing this issue, talk about the support they had from environmental groups, but I also noted that Senator Allison was very careful not to identify the other environmental groups that were supporting this legislation or that have supported the package negotiated by the Democrats. When you compare what is contained in the press release put out by the Democrats with what the reality is, you have to say that they would have been better off including a photograph at the top of the page of Senator Hill, entitling the document Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and putting in the song, `Hi ho, hi ho. It's off to work we go.' It would have been as constructive and as intelligent as the contents of this press release are.What is the environmental movement saying about this legislation? A press release was put out by the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and the Wilderness Society which said a few things about it, and I will come to that in a moment. I got some material in my office the other day from Greenpeace. They made three very important points in relation to this legislation and the material that they distributed. They said:It is our view that this legislation should be postponed for major surgery or otherwise rejected by the Senate.You would have to say when you look at the legislation that Senator Herron and Senator Eggleston combined could not save it. The following point in the material from Greenpeace is very important:The legislation should reflect the Commonwealth's extensive powers, should fully reflect our international obligations and—more importantly—should treat the Australian environment as a whole, rather than artificially dividing at State boundaries.All major environment groups in Australia have expressed deep concern about the new legislation and the process by which it was developed.In the press release of 21 June, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia and the Wilderness Society said:At the beginning of this century we created a nation from a collection of colonies—this Bill returns us to the days of different laws for different States. This does not provide the right legal basis for good nation-wide environment laws and standards.I think that is very true. A number of my colleagues, when making their contribution in this debate, have referred back to some of the experiences we have had in this country over the past 20 or 30 years when the control of environmental laws was firmly in state hands. We had the debacle over Fraser Island. We had the proposals by Bjelke-Petersen to mine or to drill for oil on the Great Barrier Reef. We had the flooding of the Franklin and all of those issues. Does anybody think it would be any different in the next century? Would anyone really entrust the environment of Western Australia to Premier Court? Would anyone really entrust the issue of capping the water supply through the Murray to Premier Kennett? Would anyone really entrust environmental issues in South Australia to Premier Olsen? I do not think so. I do not think that anyone who has any respect at all for the environment would want to entrust those individuals with making decisions that would be in the interests of the environment in those states.The state and the nature of our environment is not just a state issue. It is a national and an international issue, and we need to be a nation that has strong environmental laws that are able to be enforced nationally, that can play a constructive role, that feed into international laws, and that protect the environment for all of us.One has to say that the Democrats have got themselves into a real muddle in political terms. In the past couple of weeks they have moved from being the party of principle and the party that operated on the motto `Keep the Bastards Honest' to actually joining the bastards. They have become the political polluters. They have polluted the tax environment with their GST, which will finally finish up—if things go as predicted—being passed through this parliament. They will not be able to walk away from that and they will not be able to get rid of the odium of it; and nor should they be allowed to. They are now about to pollute the environment by putting legislation through that, in the longer term, will work to the opposite of the interests of the people they say are their core constituency. When you look at the experience of the past couple of weeks, it has clearly emerged that we have a team of players over here on my left who, when it comes to negotiating anything, are really babes in the wood—pardon the pun. They were taken to the cleaners with their eyes open and without really knowing it had happened.I used to play a bit of cards in my younger days; I suspect Senator Quirke also did, coming from the same part of the world. We had to try to get a quid in whatever way we could, and cards was one of the ways we did it. But I will tell you: I have never seen anybody holding a royal flush in a card game and folding it.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—And taking 20 Rothmans, which is what they have done.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—That is what they have done: they have actually folded a royal flush. They were sitting with the unbeatable hand; they were sitting with the opportunity to do something really constructive, and they folded the opportunity. I have been involved in politics for some 35 years in this country—a little bit longer if you add my involvement elsewhere—and I have seen a lot of situations where individuals or groups have sold out for 30 pieces of silver. But I have never seen a situation, ever, where a group were prepared to sell out for two brass pennies. That is what the Democrats got for delivering the GST to this government, and that is what they will get for delivering this polluted environmental package of legislation to the people of this country. It is an absolute disgrace. What they have done, to put it in cricket parlance, is a Herschelle Gibbs. They took their catch and threw the ball away. They threw the ball away before they had it securely in their hands and before they used it constructively.You have to say that it gets a bit wearying at times in this chamber. Over the past few months we have seen Senator Allison in particular, who is the Democrats spokesperson on environmental issues, come into this chamber at question time, and at every other opportunity, and raise issues relating to the environment. She badgered Senator Hill almost continuously about what was happening at Kakadu. There was a constant onslaught on Senator Hill, the environment minister, about the evils of the government and its policy on Kakadu. That was their approach on that issue, and it was constant over a whole period of time. It would not surprise me if we were to see, over the next couple of months, a reversal of that situation. It would not surprise me if one day we were to turn on the evening news and see Senator Hill and Senator Allison strolling arm in arm through Kakadu, through Ranger, tiptoeing through the uranium tailings up around that area. That is how close the Democrats have come to the government in terms of delivering their environmental policy. They will have delivered the very policy that they have been saying was deficient and for which they have criticised Senator Hill and his government over many months.The Democrats are becoming a bit like a bird which we used to be fond of years ago. It was known as the hoof and dinger bird. It was a bird that used to continuously fly around in ever-decreasing circles and eventually disappeared up its own passage. In political terms, you would have to say that is a reasonable description of where the Australian Democrats sit at the moment in the political environment. They are gradually shifting their support base into tighter and tighter circles, and it is not too far from disappearing from under them.It is particularly galling to see a party like the Democrats, who have made their promotion of environmental issues an absolute virtue—wherever you go, they have been the purest of pure in pursuing those issues—being prepared to sell out those principles and destroy those commitments as part of a wider deal which involves a GST but is all seen in terms of them delivering their own political relevancy. But you have to say to yourself: relevancy to achieve what? I think it is very true, as someone else said in this debate earlier, that they have gone the full circle. They have gone from being a fracture of the conservative coalition in this country—established by Don Chipp for his own political agenda at the time—right across the political spectrum through to trying to position themselves to the left of the Labor Party and other progressive parties in this country.DX5MARGETTSSenator Margetts—That wasn't too difficult at the time.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—No, everything is relative, Senator Margetts, from time to time. I am often surprised about your position on some issues when you have moved to that side of the chamber, contrary to where we thought you might have been. But everything is always relative in politics. They positioned themselves to the left of the political spectrum and, all of a sudden, they have taken a gigantic leap back onto the conservative side of politics.They have hitched their wagon firmly to this government. Whether or not this government survives will, to a large extent, determine how they go in the political future. But they will never be able to get up again in this chamber or anywhere else and lecture us, the Greens or any other political party about being virtuous, about holding to our principles, about not being prepared to sell out and about putting principle beyond pragmatism and do it with any degree of moral authority, because the public and their own support base will not wear it.The public clearly understands what the Democrats have done in this debate on the environment and in the debate over the GST. Whatever way they mask it, whatever types of press releases they put out, whatever headings they put on those press releases, at the end of the day they have, for very little gain for their own constituency, assisted this government in delivering its agenda. At the end of the day, the very people whom they purport to represent in this whole process are the people who will suffer as a consequence of the political actions that they have taken. They will have to answer for that. They will have to come to grips with the decisions that they have taken in that context.I am one of those who believe that it will not be long before the political retribution is delivered. It will not be long before the next election. It will not be long before their swollen numbers that will be here in 10 days time are whittled down considerably as a consequence of the positions that they have adopted over the past couple of weeks on these important political issues for the Australian public.It is unfortunate in many respects that they are not here to hear some of the comments that have been made by other senators in this debate. But I presume they are off doing their little negotiations in secret and putting together their little packages of deals. Maybe they are off trying to read what it is that they have agreed to.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Another deal.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Or maybe, as Senator Quirke says, there is another deal in the offering on some other piece of legislation that we are not conscious of. I happened to see Senator Murray on the way down here to the chamber and I noted he was heading in the direction of where the Prime Minister sits in this building. So maybe there is another little deal in the offering, or maybe he is just going down to see what the package is that they agreed to and what the government has come up with in terms of delivering that particular package.We are all waiting to see it. We are all waiting with bated breath to see the translation of the heads of agreement into a legislative program. I would not be surprised if Senator Hill is sitting there with bated breath to see the amendments that are proposed to the GST package or maybe to see even what the amendments are that are proposed to this package. Maybe they have not been finalised yet, Senator Hill. Maybe they are down having a cup of black coffee in the cabinet room or over in the Lodge trying to work out the finer detail. But you do not have to worry, because there is one thing that has been demonstrated beyond doubt over the past couple of weeks: whatever you negotiate with the Democrats, it will not cost you much at the end of the day. You will not have to pay much to achieve the outcomes.21:29:005988Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In closing the debate, can I, in accordance with the usual courtesies, thank senators for their participation. I have to say, however, that much of it was a very disappointing debate. Senator Campbell's last contribution typified what I heard from so many Labor speakers today. He is capable of much better. Listening to him basically attempting to fill up his allotted time because he had been instructed to stretch out this debate really was very disappointing, verging, I would have to say, on the pitiful.These tired old warriors are fighting the battles of the past. We heard it all during the course of the day: the battle of the Franklin, the battle of Shark Bay and the battle of Fraser Island. Those in the Australian Labor Party and those in the Australian Greens really wish that they were out there on the campaign trail, climbing the trees and blocking the bulldozers and doing what they do best. Of course, that was the era of the 1970s and 1980s. That was the era of confrontation. That is when legends were made. That is the era that these people in the Australian Labor Party and in the Australian Greens still live in. That is where they would like to be again. But the trouble is that the world has moved on and Australia has moved on, and the environmental challenges facing Australia are very different now from what they were in those days.The biggest change, of course, is community attitudes. The community is now much better informed. The community wants to act in an environmentally responsible way. It wants governments to show the lead and to support it in so acting, but it is out there taking the right decisions. The days when it was necessary to confront the community to try and achieve a particular environmental goal are well past. I concede that there were some achievements in those days, but there was a lot that is regrettable about it as well. If some on the other side went again to Shark Bay, Fraser Island and the like, they would still find community members deeply embittered by their experiences of the past. These people now want to work with governments and with community organisations to achieve better environmental outcomes.The second line from the ALP today in this debate has been to come in here and attempt to humiliate the Australian Democrats and in fact to attempt to intimidate them. It seems to me from observations of the last few weeks that they are not so easily intimidated. It is pleasing to see that the Democrats have moved on and that the Democrats now recognise that the community does not want to fight environmental battles in the way they were fought in the 1970s and 1980s. The community now wants to put in place a contemporary legislative scheme within which everyone knows their rights and responsi bilities, in which governments can provide the proper leadership that is necessary and within which the users of that legislation can be certain of and comfortable with the processes that are before them. In other words, it wants a regime that can achieve better environmental outcomes. It is pleasing to see that the Democrats recognise that fact. It is also pleasing to see that some within what is referred to commonly as the conservation movement also see that it is time to move on.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Not many.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—It is time to strike out, Senator Bolkus, in a new direction. It is time, as I said, to work cooperatively rather than confrontationally. You see, Mr Deputy President, practically everyone except the Australian Labor Party, the Greens and a few of the fringe organisations that still are part of the Senator Bob Brown grouping actually recognises that the existing system of environmental law in Australia has served its time and is now outdated. It is basically broken, and it is time to devise a new environmental structure in law that can reflect the challenges of the future rather than just the challenges of the past.When this new government, as it then was, addressed this issue, it saw the obvious deficiencies of the existing Commonwealth law. There was not even identified with that law something that we would recognise as of national environmental significance. The triggers were indirect triggers that had no relationship to particular environmental issues at all—triggers such as whether the Commonwealth government was to take an action such as approve a foreign investment. (Quorum formed)I was just pointing out the obvious deficiencies of the current Commonwealth legislation in relation to the environment. For example, if a development in a world heritage area threatens some environmental value, why should it make a difference if it is being funded by overseas money rather than local money? Why should one trigger Commonwealth legislation and responsibility and not the other? It is just a nonsense. How could we have got to the stage at the dawn of the new millennium where the environment minister in this country does not even make environment decisions? Environment decisions are still made, under Commonwealth laws, by so-called action ministers. I would have thought that the Australian Greens would be in here demanding contemporary environment laws for this country. But of course they are not interested in the structure of government; they are not interested in the cooperative models. All they are interested in is confrontation and trying to relive the battles of the past and what they would see as some of the victories of the past.The hypocrisy of the Labor Party in these environmental issues knows no bounds at all. We were being slammed a moment ago in relation to uranium policy. Under the Australian Labor Party there was a greater expansion of uranium output in Australia than at any other time in the country's history. And we get the hypocrisy of Senator Bolkus, for example, leading the ALP's charge to condemn the Jabiluka mine in the Kakadu area, having been in a Labor government for 13 years which turned a blind eye to Ranger—that huge open-cut uranium mine only a few kilometres away from the small underground modern Jabiluka diggings. The hypocrisy of Labor in this whole debate is extraordinary.What I was saying was that when this government came to office it saw these obvious deficiencies and said it was time to reform Australia's environment laws and put in place something contemporary that could provide the standards and the practice that would be necessary for the next 10 or 20 years in this country. We recognised that it needed to be done within our federation. There are some who keep talking about the dream of a national environmental law or a takeover of the states. It is an old dream of the ALP's and an old dream of Senator Brown's, but it is really not going to work.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You can do it for big business but not for the people.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I will talk about big business in a minute. You have to work with the existing system, the existing federation, to identify what is the appropriate role for the Commonwealth and what is the appropriate role for the states and how they can then work together to achieve the best national outcome—something that I would have thought was pretty obvious, something that can achieve a lot better outcome than the existing legal structure.We set about that negotiation. In 1996 we published the discussion paper and entered into a negotiation with the states to identify what are matters of national environmental significance for which the Commonwealth should take primary responsibility, what other matters should be primarily dealt with by the states and then how we can put that into practice to see that it works to its maximum—in other words, how we can use the capacities of both the Commonwealth and the states to deliver a sound and effective system. So we said that, where the states are better equipped to carry out assessments for the Commonwealth in these matters of national environmental significance, they should carry out that assessment, provided they do so under both law and practice that meets best contemporary standards. In other words, the Commonwealth should be able to accredit processes of the states to assist the Commonwealth in meeting its responsibility, provided the standards that the state is operating under are those that the Commonwealth would wish to see for itself.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—More ecowaffle. Do you believe your own ecowaffle?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Brown, you have had your chance. I think Senator Hill is entitled to his.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I know that Senator Brown cannot appreciate or understand how a federal system could actually work well in practice, because if you are opposed to it in principle you do not turn your mind to how to make it work better. This government wanted to make it work well so we negotiated with the states and we set out a framework for this new national system of environmental protection. For Senator Brown's benefit, for the first time we also included a bill for biological conservation in this country to protect our biodiversity. Its time had come. Regrettably the Australian Labor Party, although it had entered into the international convention on biodiversity and the national strategy, had not got around to upgrading Commonwealth law in this regard.After the COAG agreement was negotiated and agreed we went through a process of fleshing it out with further discussion papers involving all of the state players—the states, the conservation groups and industry. We took on board their advice and developed this bill. This bill then went through almost 11 months of assessment by this chamber through its committee process. Again, the committee moved around Australia and took the advice of the various interest groups that wanted to put a particular perspective on this matter. Out of that came a very helpful report which has enabled us to finetune the bill that is before the Senate tonight.Not surprisingly, after taking into account the Senate's report we took into account submissions that had been made direct to us, again by the various state players. We had further meetings with state ministers. We met with industry. We met with conservation groups. We met with indigenous groups; Senator Brown, that may not be of interest to you. We met with the indigenous groups and we worked on a package of amendments that could improve the bill that we first introduced. We are very pleased to have now before this chamber—finally, after a process that started in 1996—a bill and amendments that we believe can provide for Australia that contemporary system of environmental law. What has made the job easier is the change of attitude of the community.Senator Brown interjecting—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Senator Brown interjected with one of his usual cracks against big business. I have to say that, in my observation, the attitude of business to environmental matters has changed substantially. Business in Australia—industry in Australia—wants to cooperate. Industry in Australia says, `We will accept high and demanding environmental standards but we want certainty. We want a process that we know will not be duplicated by the Commonwealth and the states, that has strict time lines and that is usable—that, in other words, is user friendly—so that we can achieve the certainty we need in which to conduct our businesses.'10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much audible conversation on both my left and my right which is making it very difficult for Senator Hill. Senator Brown, could you refrain and give Senator Hill the appropriate time that he is due. You will undoubtedly have other opportunities during this debate.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I have doubts about that.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—What I am saying is that industry wants to adopt high environmental standards. Industry wants to adopt ESD principles. Whether it is the building industry, the housing industry, the architects, the engineers or the miners, they are all working with us in the development of guidelines that record best environmental practice, and within their various professional bodies they are putting it into practice. Now that might not be what Senator Brown wants to hear but that is the new reality in Australia.I want to mention farmers. Farmers have a particular responsibility but also a particular challenge in this area. We made a lot of mistakes in this country. Farmers cleared land that should not have been cleared. It was the community's responsibility in many ways, because we provided land for them on the basis that they cleared it and we told them it was necessary to clear and to develop or perish. Mistakes inadvertently were made. Farmers are now seeking to remedy those mistakes and new farmers are endeavouring to not repeat those mistakes. It is possible—for the benefit of Senator Brown—to work cooperatively with the rural community to achieve good environmental outcomes, and some 4,000 Landcare and community environmental groups who are out there doing the good works on the ground now have become the leaders of the environment movement in Australia. That is something that Senator Brown hates but it is also part of the new reality.I am saying that the attitude of the community has changed—industries want to work with governments on better environmental outcomes and they want to achieve win-win situations. They want to achieve economic growth and they want to see development, but they want to see it in an environmentally responsible way. They want to see economic growth. They want to see Australia as an internationally competitive economy and they are prepared to do so, but they need leadership and support from governments and the community.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—They won't get it from you.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Senator Brown, they need it from parliamentarians in this place as well. In the few minutes that I have left, I want to touch upon a few specific matters in relation to this package. There has been a debate during the course of the day about the triggers—about what are appropriate areas of national environmental significance. It is true that that was a negotiation with the states and it was limited by that negotiation, but it is possible for the Commonwealth to introduce new triggers. Senators in this place might be aware that this government has already made a commitment to enter a process of negotiation with the states on the issue of greenhouse gases, for example, as a matter of national environmental significance consistent with the COAG agreement. That will be commenced forthwith upon the passage of this bill.There are new areas that people are recognising in which the Commonwealth has a particular responsibility. Genetically modified organisms is one such area and, as honourable senators will know, this government is setting up the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator within the department of health to provide approvals. What I can say to the Senate tonight is that matters that affect the environment will be referred to the environment minister for assessment and advice by that independent regulator. That will ultimately be provided for through an amendment to this legislation, when it passes, in conjunction with the law that is going to be put in place to set up the new GTR.There are many reforms within this package to support indigenous Australians. They do have a particular knowledge and contribution to make in relation to Australian biodiversity. Somebody said in this debate earlier today that there should be an advisory body of indigenous Australians. In the amendments before the chamber, we set up such an advis ory body. But one issue that needs further assessment is the issue of access to biological resources—a highly complex issue of particular concern to indigenous Australia. Although it is not within this bill, I will cause an inquiry to be undertaken to give indigenous Australians and all Australians interested in this issue the opportunity to participate in a public debate so that the issue of access to biological resources can be further developed.Another issue that has been dealt with during the course of the day is that of bilateral agreements. It is true, as I said, that through bilateral agreements we will allow the states in certain circumstances to carry out assessments and, in very confined areas, very limited areas, even approvals if it is under a management plan that has been part of the whole process as developed. (Time expired) Question put: That the amendment (Senator Margetts's ) be agreed to.21:56:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)29Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K.* Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.42Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. O'Chee, W. G.*Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Hutchins, S. Newman, J. M.Lundy, K. Coonan, H.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time. 22:05:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)44Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. 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.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. O'Chee, W. G.*Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.28Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.*Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Coonan, H. Hutchins, S.Newman, J. M. Lundy, K.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Motion (by Senator Hill) proposed:That consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.22:03:005993Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask the minister for an explanation from the government as to why it should be made an order of the day for a later hour. If the minister would like to give that explanation, it may expedite things.22:03:005993Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—For the benefit of Senator Brown, there are a lot of rumours around, but in actual fact all I want to do is introduce two new bills.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5994r836Billsr7995994Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.599422:05:005994Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY ASSISTANCE) (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1999This bill complements the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 that has already been introduced into the parliament. That bill, which forms part of the fundamental reform of the Australian tax system, introduces reform and improvements to the assistance currently provided by government to families. From 1 July 2000, gone will be the 12 conflicting and overlapping family payments. Instead, there will be three well designed, harmonised and generous benefits that will make a positive impact on the living standards of Australian families, particularly those with low incomes.The A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) bill 1999 contains administrative, procedural and technical rules that will apply in relation to the new family assistance payments—family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B and child care benefit. The bill will also include machinery type provisions dealing with two other family-related payments, maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance.I consider that it might assist this House if I were to provide an overview of the delivery of the family assistance package.A new `Family Assistance Office' will be set up to help familiesThe new Family Assistance Office will deliver family tax benefit (parts A and B), child care benefit, maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance. The law does not refer to the Family Assistance Office as it will be a `virtual' organisation using the existing infrastructure of Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and the Health Insurance Commission (Medicare Offices). It is expected that all Australian Taxation Offices, all Centrelink offices and all Medicare offices will have a Family Assistance Office as part of their office. The extended network of sites will ensure families have a greater choice about the way in which they access assistance.In order to give families these choices, the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services will have the power to delegate his or her powers to constituent agencies of the new Family Assistance Office. The heads of these agencies and their staff, as delegates of the Secretary, will be able to process claims, make payments and perform other functions under the family assistance law.Making a claim for Family Tax BenefitThe primary carer will be able to make a claim for family tax benefit in one of the following ways:lodge a claim with the Family Assistance Office (through Centrelink) for fortnightly payments; orclaim a lump sum payment at the end of the year (through the taxation system), either through the primary carer's tax return or their partner's tax return. Families will have a further option to reduce their (or their partner's) tax instalment deductions during the year in anticipation of their end of year family tax benefit lump sum entitlement.Making a claim for Child Care BenefitFamilies will be able to claim child care benefit for formal care (in approved child care services) in one of the following ways:as instalment payments paid directly to their nominated child care service to enable the service to reduce the fees that the family will pay (current arrangements under which child care assistance advance payments are made to child care services will be preserved for child care benefit purposes. This will be achieved by regulations); oras a lump sum after the end of the financial year (from the Family Assistance Office).Child care benefit for informal care will be claimed as a lump sum for a period of care of up to 12 months and paid via the Family Assistance Office.Child care benefit will not be delivered through the tax system because of the complexity of the information parents would need to retain to be able to correctly assess their entitlement.Making a claim for Maternity Allowance and Maternity Immunisation AllowanceFamilies will be able to claim single, one-off payments of maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance from the Family Assistance Office (through Centrelink). Like child care benefit, maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance will not be delivered through the tax system.Families will receive their correct entitlement to family assistanceFamilies who choose to receive fortnightly payments will estimate their income for the current financial year. Their estimated income will be compared with their actual income at the end of the year. Families who have overestimated their income during the year and have been underpaid will receive a `top up' payment at the end of the year. On the other hand, families who have underestimated their income and have been overpaid, will be required to pay back the amount they were overpaid during the year. This is much fairer than the current arrangements for family allowance where families who underestimate their income are required to pay back the amount they were overpaid but families who overestimate their income during the year do not receive a top up payment. It is also fairer than the current arrangement for child care assistance where families do not receive a top up payment if they are underpaid, and are not required to pay back overpaid amounts.Administrative arrangements for Maternity Allowance and Maternity Immunisation AllowanceThe administration of these payments will not change significantly under the new family assistance regime.Administrative arrangements for Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Benefit will be simplifiedSimpler rules will be administered by one agencyRather than dealing with potentially 12 forms of assistance with different eligibility rules and payment arrangements through three different agencies, families will now have to deal with only 3 payments with similar eligibility rules and with one agency, the Family Assistance Office.Same rules for all familiesThere will be one set of rules for all families regardless of how they choose to receive family assistance. For family tax benefit, this means that regardless of whether families receive fortnightly payments or as an end of year lump sum claimed with their tax returns, they will all be subject to the same eligibility criteria, rate calculators and administrative arrangements under the family assistance law. For child care benefit, regardless of whether families receive ongoing payments or lump sum payments from the Family Assistance Office (through Centrelink), the same eligibility rules and rates will apply.Under the new arrangements, decisions made by the Secretary regarding entitlement to, or eligibility for, family tax benefit and child care benefit will be reviewable by the Secretary, or an authorised review officer, regardless of delivery option. It is expected that where family tax benefit is paid through the tax system, the Commissioner, as delegate of the Secretary, will carry out the review functions for those customers. There will be further rights of appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court. Rules explaining the process for review of decisions are set out in Part 5 of this bill and will be kept separate from the Australian Taxation Office appeal and review process. Determinations made by approved child care services regarding child care benefit in special circumstances will not be reviewable. Approved child care services and registered carers will also have the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal about the Secretary's decisions affecting them, except where the decision is the result of a Commonwealth planning strategy affecting the distribution of child care places.It will be easier for families to repay overpaymentsAs family tax benefit is partly administered through the tax system, overpayments of family tax benefit will be recovered from a claimant's tax refund where possible. This bill will also allow another person, for example the claimant's partner, to make his or her income tax refund available to offset a claimant's family tax benefit debt. In such cases, where consent is given, the Commissioner will apply the partner's income tax refund to reduce or extinguish the claimant's family tax benefit debt. The new administrative arrangements for recovering overpayments of family tax benefit, will make it much easier for families to repay a family tax benefit debt. Where it is not possible to recover overpayments of family tax benefit from the taxation system, and for overpayments of child care benefit, these will be recovered by the Family Assistance Office under existing Centrelink arrangements.Since child care benefit will not be delivered through the tax system, tax refunds and debts will not be applied against child care benefit debts and payments. Also other family assistance overpayments will not be recoverable from child care benefit. However, child care benefit overpayments will be recoverable from family tax benefit or from social security payments.Family Tax Benefit paid through the tax system will be a payment, not a tax rebate or an increase in tax free thresholdAlthough claimants will be able to lodge claims for family tax benefit and receive lump sum and top up payments through the taxation system, the family tax benefit entitlement will not be in the form of a tax rebate or an increase in a person's tax free threshold.Traditionally, measures like family tax benefit (such as the family tax assistance) have been provided as tax rebates or as an increase in a person's threshold where the rate of family assistance is calculated by the Australian Taxation Office and offset against tax payable.A similar approach was not adopted for family tax benefit because the administrative mechanism of delivering family tax benefit through a person's income tax assessment would have been very complicated and families would not have been able to benefit from the simpler structure and administrative arrangements of the proposed system (for example, it would not have been possible to ensure that all families receive their correct entitlement regardless of delivery option) which is the main feature of family assistance reform.I commend the bill to the Senate.A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY ASSISTANCE) (CONSEQUENTIAL AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL (NO. 2) 1999This bill accompanies the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999. Together, they will facilitate the introduction of the new family assistance package from 1 July 2000.The bill:amends a number of Commonwealth acts that refer to concepts and terms that are relevant under the existing family assistance structure and repeal or amend the references to reflect the new family assistance regime;provides for the appropriate calculation of family tax benefit part A for those recipients in receipt of income support (or whose partners receive income support);allows the use or disclosure of information by or between the three agencies involved in the transition to the new family assistance regime—Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and the Health insurance Commission—for the purpose of identifying shared customers (so that customers receive only one letter about the new arrangements instead of, potentially, three); andmakes some other minor technical amendments.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned. Bills5996s1825996Consideration resumed.The bill.22:05:005996Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 22 June 1999. I would also like to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum in relation to the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] .5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam Chair.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Before you take your point of order, I ask senators who are having conversations in the aisles to do so somewhere else.Senator McKiernan interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator McKiernan.Opposition senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I draw to your attention the fact that Senator Hill is mumbling and it is very hard to hear what he is proposing. We heard about the explanatory memorandum and it is good that he is explaining himself. On this second matter it is impossible to hear and I am only a metre or two away from him. If you could ask him to speak clearly for the benefit of all senators, I am sure we would all appreciate it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Now that colleagues from both sides of the chamber have left the chamber and the noise has been reduced, we will all be able to hear what Senator Hill is saying.Opposition senators interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order!BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—We can always hear Senator Faulkner, because he shouts.AW5CARRSenator Carr—He is not a gentleman, is he?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I actually do not think he is one of the chardonnay set of which you have many on your side of the chamber, Senator Carr. In fact, within your party there is criticism of it.Senator Carr interjecting—Senator Chris Evans interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Evans, it is unruly to interject at the best of times but doing so out of your seat is even worse.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Now repeat it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, are you seeking to raise a point of order?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes. If nobody else is, I am.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am waiting for some order in the chamber before I call Senator Hill.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—These are the signs of a very frustrated opposition, I might say, Madam Chair, and I think it is delightful. I was seeking your guidance as to whether it might be an appropriate time to also table the supplementary explanatory memorandum in relation to the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] .10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I think it would be best done when you are dealing with that bill.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I thank you.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill stand as printed.22:09:005997Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I think at the outset the government and the Democrats—two of whom have made it into the chamber at this late hour of night—owe us an explanation as to what is going to be the procedure. What has been established is that this is monumental legislation as far as the future of Australia's environment is concerned. There are different points of view on that. Senator Hill said that there are rumours about the place, and he was referring to the use of the guillotine. I would like to know from the government and the Democrats—Senator Woodley is in his place; there is only one there now—what the agreed procedure and time allocation for the debate on this legislation in the next 24 hours are. We have a right to know that. If the government and/or the Democrats—because they will need to work together on this—are going to use the gag, I suggest, first of all, that we come to recognise that fact and that then we get some orderly process in place so that the truncated debate that will take place can take place with all the important matters we need to discuss at least getting some airing.22:10:005997Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—One thing I do agree with is that this is monumental legislation—very important in the national interest. I am pleased that that has been recognised by Senator Brown. He might also recognise that it is long overdue. It should have been introduced by Labor a decade ago but they could not pick up the ball, they missed their chance, and the natural resource assets of Australia suffered as a result.Having said that, I remind Senator Brown that this has been a process of some 2½ years, a long process, and it is now time to put a bill into law. The Senate itself has had the matter before it for many months. I think that the Senate committees had the bill in total for about 11 months. After that level of consultation and consideration by the parliamentary process to date, it is not the view of the government that this should necessarily be a very long debate, Senator Brown. The issues are well known. The Senate committee has reported. Many of the suggestions of the Senate committee have been taken up by the government in its amendments that are now before the chamber. There are actually only a limited number of issues that really need to be debated at the committee stage in this chamber.So I would not think it would take a very long time. I know that the Senate is also anxious to get on with debate on the new tax reform package, which is also a monumental piece of legislation by a reformist government, Senator Brown, and a package of legislation that I hope Senator Brown will also support a little later in the week. It is not the intention of the government to take any process tonight which might curtail debate, but by tomorrow it may well be necessary to seek from the Senate some form of time management process in order that the debate can be contained within a reasonable period. I do it for the benefit of all honourable senators, because otherwise we will all have to sit here for two weeks listening to Senator Brown, and that would be unfair on all except the Australian Greens. So the government may seek some mechanism in the morning and invite the Senate to join with us to restrain this debate to a reasonable period of time.22:13:005998Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The government does not have the numbers to gag this debate, but Senator Hill has made it abundantly clear it is going to gag the debate tomorrow. What I want to know is: what are the poodles doing? What are the Democrat political poodles in this situation going to do as far as this gag is concerned? There are two of them—Senator Allison and Senator Woodley—sitting here. There are many people listening to this debate who want to know what these political convenience people over here who are selling out on the environment are going to do with respect to Senator Allison's assurance that this legislation was important because it would give full transparency and public consultation. With the government they have brought 400 amendments in here tonight. These have not been on the public record before today.The Democrats are assuring us that they are in the business of full transparency and public consultation. If that is the case, there is no way that they are going to support a gag tomorrow. Senator Margetts points out that there are 900 amendments here. What I want to hear from Senator Allison and Senator Woodley is that they will not be part of a gag of this important debate. The minister says it is monumental legislation—for exactly the opposite reason. But we want to hear from the mendicants at the prime ministerial table—the sell-out merchants here—how far they are actually going to sell out on this debate. I now invite Senator Allison and/or Senator Woodley to have the gumption to get up and tell this place what they are going to do tomorrow as far as the guillotine on this legislation is concerned.22:15:005998Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Minister, I have a question to you, too, and I wonder if you might consider it along with Senator Brown's question. Minister, it is—Opposition senators interjecting—HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I am sorry. If you listen, you will be able to get the point. Minister, Senator Brown obviously wants the environment powers to remain with the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Could you explain clearly how your role changes with the legislation to protect the environment?22:16:005998Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Mr Temporary Chairman, I would love to respond to that and I will, but I wonder whether I should do so pursuant to a block of amendments, because I am sure that the Senate is anxious to get on with the substantive debate. The clerks have given us some guidance and have suggested that amendments be moved as a block to chapters 2 and 4. I am referring to the running sheet that has the time of 9.35 p.m. tonight on it, and perhaps I could seek leave to move government amendments as a block for those two chapters. If that leave is given, in so moving I will then with great pleasure respond to Senator Woodley's point.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Hill, will you specify for the purposes of the debate what amendments you are actually moving?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—As I said, I am following the running sheet that has been distributed in the chamber.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. I understand that.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I will read them out, if that would be of help.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes; that is what we want.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—They are (10) to (71), (75) to (146) and (148) to (174) on sheet DT218.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you. Is leave granted?22:17:005999Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—No. Leave is not granted. Let me put on record why I believe that leave should not be granted in respect of this. This is becoming past a joke. We in the Senate tonight have been asked to address some 906 amendments: 569 all-up from the government, 277 from the opposition, 50 from the Greens and a paltry 10 from the Democrats—906 altogether. As the minister said, under time management we can expect to finish this debate probably some time tomorrow. On any analysis, we have been asked to consider 906 amendments at something like 20 seconds per amendment. But not only that: we have had 5½ hours since the government's 511 amendments were actually tabled in this place.Were we to have spent all the time on analysing those amendments, we would have had some 40 seconds per amendment during that period—not allowing for dinner breaks or whatever. That is 5½ hours for 511 amendments, with 40 seconds to analyse each and every one of those amendments. It is a joke. It makes a joke of public accountability and a joke of the parliamentary process. I must say that, from my 18 years in this place, I do not think this place has ever been asked to stoop to the standards that we are seeing tonight.The government, after a secret deal hatched between themselves and the Democrats—those lapsed environmentalists—are coming in here and asking us to approve some 569 amendments, 511 of which are part of that secret arrangement. And now the minister says to us, `Let's deal with them in a batch.' Let us look at the batch that he has asked us to deal with them in. He must think that basically we are all asleep on this side of the parliament, in the press gallery and out in the community. Let us look at the first batch of (10) to (71). He says that this has been prepared by the Senate office. I do not know if it has been with or without instruction or suggestion, but look at (10) to (71): what have all those amendments got in common?Let us look at them. Amendment (10) relates to something technical in respect to actions requiring approval for the purposes of Part 3. We need to spend some time on that. Clause 13 refers to declarations under the world heritage act in respect of world heritage property. Clause 13 talks about strengthening protection of matters of national environmental significance. Then we have a subpart of amendment 13 which, I must say, goes to clauses 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 34, 38, 47, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. So, within one amendment, the minister is asking us to look at some 15 different clauses. Within all that, there is the concept of criminal prosecution and criminal penalties being attached to some offences. What has that got to do with world heritage? We may well ask. The next clause, clause 14, goes to maximum penalties of seven years imprisonment and so on. We are not dealing with light matters here.We are not dealing with similar matters when the minister has asked us to address all those amendments together. For instance, clause 16 refers to declaration of a wetland as a Ramsar wetland. That also is something that needs particular attention. Clause 17 is on nuclear installations, and the amendments make the definition of a nuclear installation consistent with the definition used in the ARPANSA legislation. That is another matter which also requires attention.From Ramsar we go to nuclear, and then in clause 18 we go fishing. Minister, what are you trying to get at this evening, asking us to address all of these in one batch? Clause 19 talks about adding new matters of national environmental significance by regulation. Clause 20 is in respect of regulation. Now those two might go together, but then clause 21 goes to the minister's power to specify that an action on Commonwealth land does not require approval under Part 9. Then clause 22 is on national interest. So we have gone from fishing to the national interest: not even Warren Entsch can do that on one day, but we have been asked to do it in this place tonight.Then we go on to activities and decisions, technical terms, and conducting of reviews every five years. Luckily we get a recognition in clause 25 of a process for public consultation. That process for public consultation has attracted so much attention in the committee process, through the digest process and through the work done by the Parliamentary Library, and yet we are asked to lump that in one batch with all the other matters: heritage, fishing, nuclear, public consultation.Some of these matters may sit easily together but I have only gone through about 10 of the clauses and the minister has essentially asked us to address some 170 clauses together in one batch. What always comes out about this minister is he always does it with a straight face. I have not gone anywhere near the full extent of the amendments that we need to discuss tonight. There is the concept of the Auditor-General and also lost and locked in these amendments is the joint management arrangements of Booderee National Park, Uluru and Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu National Park—all of which have attracted a great degree of attention in themselves.Not only that, we have been presented today with a set of bodgie and dodgy documents from the Australian Democrats saying that they have protected indigenous Australians, that they have done great things for indigenous Australians because they have defended the joint management arrangements in respect of those national parks in the Northern Territory. Have they protected them! If this is the sort of protection you get, don't let me rely on Democrat protection at any time in the future. What protection have they given them? They have got in their documentation three concepts of protection. Not one of those concepts tells the truth. Concept one up-front in their press statement is that they are defending the joint management arrangements and resisting Northern Territory government representation on the joint management boards. Midway through their documentation they say the indigenous representatives, the traditional owners, will have the right to refuse Northern Territory representation but they cannot be unreasonable about it.In the middle of the documentation they say the appointment of a Northern Territory representative on the boards of Kakadu and Uluru national parks is now subject to the consent of the traditional owners, which may not be withheld unreasonably. That is what they want us to believe. That is information they have sent out to those people in the conservation councils around the country that they want to con, and are they conning them! When you go further in their lists of achievements, what do you get? You get a regime that is documented that says traditional owners can resist a representation of the Northern Territory government but, in the event of a protracted dispute, the Commonwealth ombudsman will investigate and make a ruling. The minister may terminate the appointment of a non-indigenous representative on the board if they are not acting in the interests of the board. So basically this right of refusal by traditional owners, indigenous owners, has been diluted to the Commonwealth ombudsman investigating and making a ruling. What sort of protection is that? Senator Woodley is here. Senator Woodley has got great connections with indigenous Australians but why try to con them?7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—And the TOs have agreed to that, have they, Senator Bolkus?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I do not know if they have or not. But I must say they would not have seen it.BH4HILLSenator Hill—You wouldn't care, would you?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Of course I would care. But, in terms of caring, this is another issue that needs to be fronted up to. You are the one who went to the traditional owners and said, `I will not change anything without your consent'. In writing you said that. What was the next thing they heard from you? The legislation changing those joint management arrangements—not only without their consent but without their prior knowledge and without prior consultation. Let us put on the record that consultation is pretty important. This is one of the 160 to 170 amendments that this minister wants us to debate in one batch. You just cannot do it and nor should this parliament be expected to do it. This is the parliamentary process of a southern American state.BH4HILLSenator Hill—What are you saying?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We are talking here of basically cowboy strategies, cowboy processes.BH4HILLSenator Hill—We have had 11 months of Senate inquiry.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Hill keeps on saying 11 months in the Senate. We have had 511 amendments since four o'clock this afternoon and we have been asked as a parliament to make a considered assessment of them—not just in our interests as individual parliamentarians but there are stakeholders out there from all sections of the community who also have been denied access to this grubby little secret deal that you and the Democrats have concocted together. That is why I am opposing giving Senator Hill leave to consider these 160 amendments together.In some respects there is some commonality and we could consider some of these 160 to 170 amendments together. But we should not be asked to consider all of them together. We can add to that over 100 opposition amendments. So what we have been asked to do—this is the opening gambit by the minister—is to consider close to 300 amendments in one shot. Give us a break and give the parliamentary process a break, Senator Hill. This is not on. This is over the top.If the Australian Democrats are not going to be compliant, I would say they will stand to be condemned not just by their constituency but by the Australian community. This is, as I say, southern American politics. You might as well do away with the bar table and resort to fisticuffs to work out how this will be resolved because this is no law, this is no process. This is basically a denigration of all of those processes that we say, and have consistently said, are important. Three hundred amendments in one batch should be too rich even for Senator Hill and he ought to be ashamed of himself.22:28:006001Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I want to respond to Senator Woodley's point because it demonstrates the failure of the existing system, the inappropriateness of the existing system in the year 1999, when the environment minister of this country does not have the capacity in Commonwealth environment law to make decisions.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You don't have any capacity.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Senator Brown does not read the legislation. He knows the slogans and the war cries, but he does not read the legislation. If he sat down and read the Commonwealth EPIP Act, he would find that the environment minister in this country simply gives advice to so-called action ministers, including the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. They are the ministers under the existing regime who make the important decisions that action Commonwealth processes. It is not the environment minister. For the first time in the history of this country, under this legislation the environment minister makes the environment decision.Progress reported.Adjournment600110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.600122:30:006001Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Tonight I ask honourable senators and others listening to this parliamentary broadcast to imagine a debt-free start for one billion people to the next millennium. This is the aim of the Jubilee 2000 campaign, which is now operating in 60 countries. Jubilee 2000 was started in the United Kingdom in 1990 by a number of individuals who believed that radical action was needed to address the devastating impact of Third World country indebtedness to the world. They identified the year 2000 as a useful focus for a campaign calling for a one-off remission of debt along the lines of the Jubilee year described in the biblical book of Leviticus.The term is used throughout the old and new testaments and other religious teachings. The practice of usury is regarded right throughout as a repugnant term and a repug nant practice towards one's fellow man. The aim of the Jubilee 2000 charter is, firstly, to liberate the poorest nations from the burden of the backlog of unpayable debt—I emphasise that it is unpayable debt—owed by their governments to other countries, to international financial institutions or to commercial banks. It aims to achieve such liberation and a return to sustainable development through an unrepeated one-off remission of unpayable debt of the poorest countries by the year 2000. It also aims to provide a focus and catalyst for harmonising and mobilising international cooperation in supporting actions to promote and achieve the charter's aim. It also seeks to promote understanding among creditor nations that the responsibility for high levels of indebtedness rests with creditors as well as with debtors.The Jubilee 2000 debt coalition is a practical solution to the problem that has been affecting hundreds of millions of people for over 15 years and will only succeed if we have wide public support. Debt is a crippling fact in the existence and persistence of poverty in so many Third World countries. One billion people are trapped in poverty, and they can do nothing about countries trapped under a mountain of debt that they can never pay back.In the 1970s, Western banks lent huge sums to Third World countries in the hope that the countries would use the funds to boost exports and to make profits. Unfortunately, interest rates rose rapidly with spiralling debt repayments and the price of primary products often fell to 30 per cent on average, thereby considerably reducing the incomes of Third World countries. Another factor was expenditure on armaments often used to prop up despotic dictators. The result was that the poorest countries in the world began earning less and less and had to pay more and more.Today, many of the poorest nations are even deeper in debt than they were when they first took out the loans because of the impact of interest. Although they may have repaid much more than the equivalent of the original loan, their total debts continue to rise. The influence of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on the policies of devel oping countries is immense. Because of this, they too have a key role. In 1992, they stepped in, giving debtor countries more time to pay. Accepting their condition has meant that Third World country governments had even less to spend on their own people.In Africa as a whole, for example, four times more is spent on interest than on the health care system. In the world's 37 poorest countries, spending per person has gone down 50 per cent on health and 25 per cent on education. In Tanzania, where 40 per cent of people die before the age of 35, debt repayments are six times more than spending on health care.Jubilee 2000 proposes to celebrate the new millennium by cancelling the unpayable debts of the world's poorest nations. They have worked with economists, business people, politicians, diplomats and aid agencies to design a practical proposal balancing the interests of both the debtors as well as the creditors. So the Jubilee 2000 plan is to identify the poorest debt burdened countries and to calculate the debt of each country that could never be repaid. They would then negotiate conditions to remove this debt on a country by country basis, ensuring that the world would benefit.In arriving at this decision to remit the burden of the backlog of unpayable debts to the poorest countries, arbitrators would take into account for each debtor country that country's probity, economic management, social policies and human rights record. Debt remission would be made conditional upon governments utilising the financial resources that become available for investment in basic human needs. Targets for improving access to primary health, basic education, water and sanitation will be established along with the costs of meeting them. The debts would be cancelled by the end of the year 2000 as a once-off celebration of the millennium.Supporters are indeed wide ranging, including the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, the Baptist churches of Australia, Caritas Australia, Community Aid Abroad, the International Federation of Free Trade Unions, the International Union of Physicians, World Vision and many more. International patrons include Susan George, the Associate Director of the Transnational Institute, and Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop of Capetown. Australian patrons boast the Most Reverend Keith Rainer, the Archbishop of Melbourne; the Anglican Primate of Australia; Professor Clifford Hughes from the Department of Surgery at the University of Sydney; and the much respected Reverend Tim Costello, who is incidentally the brother of Australia's Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello.Over 35,000 children die each year from hunger related causes. One and a half billion of the world's population live on less than $1 per day. I believe that we could all help by making donations to Jubilee 2000 and by telling others about Jubilee 2000, including its aims.I also take this opportunity to ask Western governments, including our own, that are not prepared to go to the full extent of writing off the debt to make a gesture of concern and goodwill and at least use this important occasion to perhaps venture even a small or a token write-off of part of the debt. This would be a great gesture. In fact, the write-off is not as unrealistic as some might think, given the almost impossible position of so many of these nations that are not really in a position to pay off that debt in any case. Why not write off a portion of it as a gesture of goodwill in celebration of the 2000 millennium?600322:38:006003Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—It is opportune to be able to rise this evening to address the Senate in regard to some rural and regional information technology challenges in particular. It is opportune for several reasons, including recent media reports which listed the world's richest people according to Forbes magazine. Few would be surprised that Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, gets a guernsey heading the list, but of particular interest was the inclusion of a Japanese businessman, worth an estimated $9.77 billion, who evidently has a larger proportion of the Internet economy than any other. It is amazing, considering that 10 years ago the industry was virtually unheard of and certainly would not have been viewed as being capable of generating such an enormous amount of wealth.All around the world, individuals, companies and countries are grappling with issues surrounding an industry with this capacity, and Australia is no exception. It is especially true that Australia has the potential, as my colleague Senator Tierney pointed out earlier this year in a speech in the chamber, to `become the information hub of South-East Asia'. Look at Australia's take-up of technology—1.27 million Australian households were online last year, an increase of almost 50 per cent in 12 months. That equates to 4.2 million Australian adults having access to the web, making it the third-highest per capita user of the Internet after Finland and the United States. It equates to 4.2 million Australians having access to a range of services, information sources and retail outlets through e-commerce which previously were less accessible.E-commerce is without doubt a growth area, but it is not the only element of the growth of the information economy with which we should concern ourselves. There is a plethora of issues associated with the Internet and other innovations which need to be dealt with for Australia to make the most from these emerging industries and technologies. One of the most important challenges is to ensure that all Australians, especially those across rural and regional areas, can benefit from these innovations. We should remember that, whilst all Australians face particular challenges in incorporating new technologies into their lives or their businesses, those in rural and regional areas often face greater and more varied challenges.In reading some of the range of literature that abounds in this growing area, I looked at an article from an edition of the Economic Development Review in 1993. In an article entitled `Rural economic development using information age technology' the authors commented on what they described as the `potential to alleviate rurality as a barrier to job creation' as a result of the manner in which new technologies can overcome issues of geographic location. There is no doubt that this is a true statement. The potential of the Internet and e-commerce to make distance almost irrelevant is enormous, but it is up to those directing the growth of these areas to ensure that the benefits are enjoyed by all.When the West report—the government's review of higher education financing and policy—was released last year, there was much discussion of the use of technology in education. The report noted the potential and increasing role that technologies such as the Internet might play in furthering education. There is enormous benefit to be gained from the Net in terms of breaking down problems of access to education. The possibilities are endless. That raises one of the most pressing challenges in relation to rural and regional use of IT—that of ensuring that access to the necessary technologies that will allow them to benefit fully from such innovations. It can be as simple as ensuring access to a computer and a telephone line, but it is also about issues that relate to telecommunications and education. Those issues are magnified by the challenges of distance and isolation.It is not restricted to Australia. In the United States, President Clinton has raised similar concerns and committed the US government to:. . . hook up every school and every library in this country . . . to the Internet and to make sure that all the schools and all the libraries in the smallest, poorest rural areas and the most densely populated poor urban areas . . . will all be able to afford to use this invaluable service.Access to technology is not the only challenge facing our increasingly technological world. Ensuring that people have access to information technologies and that they also have the understanding and the motivation to utilise those technologies is just as important. Everybody knows that a computer is useless unless the people sitting in front of them know how to use them and, most importantly, know how to use them to their advantage.In a report on Australian IT and rural development in the Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, comment was made of the enthusiasm with which Australians have embraced innovations as simple as mobile phones or VCRs, but there was also a reference to the `relatively low adoption'—in this case, by farmers—`of computer technology, particularly in comparison to their urban business counterparts'. The point was made that international developments across a range of areas indicate that it would be beneficial for Australian primary producers to utilise new technologies. The challenge for government is to ensure that those in rural and regional areas are motivated by the benefit that they may derive from the use of technologies, understand how to implement them in an appropriate manner and have access to what is required to effect that implementation.As rapidly as the technologies have become available, there have been individuals and organisations seeking to deal with challenges specific to bringing those advances to rural and regional areas. Most importantly, there have been those who have sought to meet such challenges, not just in relation to economic gains which might be made but also in relation to social gains.I have referred previously in the Senate to an organisation called Reach Out, which has been focusing solidly on the challenge of providing online advice to young Australians who might be at risk of suicide. Triple J listeners have heard all about Reach Out and recent listeners in particular will be familiar with the Reach Out Rural and Regional Tour which has been occurring recently. The big RORRT, as the project has become known, involves Reach Out representatives travelling across the state to schools, TAFEs and youth centres promoting the organisation and the benefits of Net access for those young people who might require their services. Reach Out also plans to provide free Internet access terminals in different parts of the state, to be accessed by those who might not have ready access in other places.The coalition have recognised many of the challenges that I have outlined, and we have implemented a number of initiatives and programs aimed at ensuring more equitable application of IT across the country on a broader level. One of the important initiatives was holding a series of regional summits. The summits were launched in conjunction with the release of a policy paper, `Towards an Australian strategy for the information economy.' Many summits, including one in Penrith in greater Western Sydney, where I am based, were conducted across the country throughout last year, and there are plans to hold several more. They are a crucial way of ensuring that regional communities explore the opportunities and the benefits that are to be gained from the Internet and the emerging online economy, hand in hand with the government and the National Office for the Information Economy.Another significant initiative is the Networking the Nation program, which will ensure that Australians can enjoy the benefits of improved and increasingly varied telecommunications services. The government realised that gaps between the quality and cost of these services in metropolitan and non-metropolitan Australia needed to be addressed and introduced a program to fund increased telecommunications infrastructure across the country and specifically in rural and regional Australia. Funding is open to a range of projects, including those that focus on the provision of one-off infrastructure development, those that trial new innovative technologies, and those that involve assisting communities in identifying needs for particular telecommunications services and uses as an element of an overall project. They might focus on, for example, improving access by removing the STD charge for rural and remote access to the Internet, promoting awareness of online services, providing training, or even providing assistance for start-up or relocation and training costs of establishing communication network assistance services.As I have suggested, the government have recognised, in a number of areas, the specific needs of rural and regional Australia in regard to information technologies and, through Networking the Nation, aim to ensure that individual communities can reap the benefits available through new technology.It is worth while noting briefly the breadth of projects that have been funded under Networking the Nation. In the latest round of grants, announced on 1 June, a diversity of projects received funding. For example, Reach Out, the organisation to which I referred earlier, received a sum for Reach Out Bush Network, to build technology resources for young people in rural areas across New South Wales. In my region of greater Western Sydney, TRI Community Exchange received support to develop a comprehensive and dynamic regional intranet and associated training for the community services sector, which will be extended to 12 local government areas in central western New South Wales. In other areas of the state, the projects have been just as impressive. In Cobar, the Cobar Community Development Station Inc. received funding to set up an Internet cafe, with the aim of providing Internet training and awareness raising for business and social use.This is technology which has the capacity to deal with the worldwide population and economic drift towards major cities that has been occurring for most of this century. It may even address some of that trend, and addressing that would allow rural areas to compete with urban areas on a level footing across a range of issues. How we as a government, but particularly as a nation, approach these emerging challenges will be the measure of how successful we are in the information age.600522:48:006005Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—Just 24 hours ago, this Senate passed the bill which will allow the further 16.6 per cent sale of Telstra. That will deliver, to rural and regional Australia in particular, a $1 billion social bonus, and that is undoubtedly welcomed by those living in regional areas of Australia. In particular, my home state of Tasmania has received a generous, albeit much needed, contribution from that social bonus. The mobile phone access and computer access for regional areas, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, is most welcome.I believe people are entitled to ask why the Labor senators and the Greens senator from Tasmania voted against these proposals—proposals which include the important upgrading of the Tasmanian Athletics Centre, where the facilities were, quite frankly, of Third World standard. Approximately 20,000 school children per annum access those facilities, but Labor and Greens senators wanted to deny those Tasmanian school children the right to those proper and decent facilities. The Bill Barwick International Athletics Centre, as it will be called, will receive a major boost with a contribution of $600,000. Similarly, the Tasmanian people are entitled to ask why Labor senators and the Greens senator from Tasmania voted against the proposal which delivers the sealing of the Flinders Island airstrip—an important matter for those people living on Flinders Island.Indeed, the question has to be asked: why did the member for Bass also vote against this proposal? The question can also be asked: why did the members for Braddon and Bass and the Labor senators from Tasmania seek to deny the people of King and Flinders Islands a proper mobile phone service? Sure, they enjoy the mobile phone service, living in Launceston and Burnie in my home state, and when they come up to Canberra they can always use their mobile phones. But the people who live on King Island and Flinders Island in Bass Strait do not have such a privilege, and these Labor members and senators would seek to deny them that opportunity.The most bizarre thing of all is the Greens senator's opposition to the $25 million boost to the Natural Heritage Trust funding for Tasmania. If one is committed to the environment, as we are led to believe the Greens senator is, one has to ask: why is it that he would seek to deny the Tasmanian environment $25 million worth of repairs? The reason, quite simply, is that his left-wing ideology of government ownership is a lot more important to him than the bottom line of fixing the environment. One could also ask: why is it that the Labor members from Tasmania, the Labor senators and the Greens senator opposed the extra coverage that will be provided for SBS television to remote areas, including areas in Tasmania?There is no doubt that this package will be of major significance to Tasmania. It is a major boost. But when the test came, Labor Party members and senators from Tasmania slavishly followed the party line rather than being concerned about the best interests of the people whom they are elected to represent. In recent times we have had a Labor campaign seeking to deflect from these excellent outcomes for Tasmania by suggesting that there have been job losses in Telstra. There have been no job losses in Tasmania in relation to Telstra. The numbers are pretty well even; indeed, there may have been a slight growth.But all that aside, the simple fact is that any rearrangement of jobs within Telstra is a function of the competition policy which the previous Labor government introduced. It has nothing to do with privatisation. Indeed, with our policies of pursuing privatising and seeking to make the telecommunications industry even more efficient, there are today now more jobs in telecommunications than there were when we first came into government. So the furphy that the Labor senators are trying to introduce into this debate is something that they need to live with, because in fact it is a function of competition that they themselves whilst in government introduced into the marketplace.I am, along with the vast majority of my fellow Tasmanians, absolutely delighted with the package that the federal government was able to put together in relation to the sale of Telstra and the $1 billion social bonus from which Tasmania benefits so greatly. Yesterday I had the opportunity to put on the record, via ABC radio to listeners in New South Wales, the reason that Tasmania is so deserving of extra funding from a social bonus. It should be remembered in this place that, as a result of decisions taken by former Labor governments, a major power development in my home state was blocked, then the development of a major pulp mill was blocked by federal Labor and 40 per cent of our landmass has now been locked up as part of the world heritage areas introduced by Labor.Those three decisions, designed to get Green preferences on the mainland, have had devastating social and economic consequences for my fellow Tasmanians and the economy of my home state. Unfortunately when you take those decisions it takes some time to wash through, but the people of Tasmania are now suffering with population decline and the highest rate of unemployment in the nation. We were told that we would never need that extra power supply. We now have a strange twist of politics with the Labor Deputy Premier coming up to Canberra seeking federal assistance to get a gas pipeline across Bass Strait to assist with the power needs of Tasmania. That is the problem of a lack of forward planning and short-term decision making by federal Labor trying to get Green preferences at the expense of the Tasmanian people, and it is now having a devastating impact on my home state. It is therefore appropriate, when moneys are freed up through this sale of Telstra, that from that social bonus an extra portion be paid to Tasmania to make up for those horrendous decisions taken by the Labor Party against my home state since 1983.The people of Tasmania welcome this package overwhelmingly. They are absolutely devastated to think that Labor senators and Labor members of the House of Representatives—to a man and woman—voted against this package when they know the desperate need for Tasmania to be provided with this money which has been so well targeted. These are initiatives that show that a lot of thought went into the package and identified needs and possibilities for Tasmania to become a more self-sustaining economy. I, for one, welcome the announcements that were made over the weekend and the passage of the further partial sale of Telstra by this Senate yesterday evening, and the people of Tasmania are very pleased by the decisions taken by this Senate and the federal Liberal government.600722:57:006007O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I was not intending to speak this evening, but I think there should be some analysis of some of the comments that have been made by Senator Abetz and other government senators about the Telstra package that was negotiated by Senator Harradine. Let me say at the outset that, when I was first given to understand the nature of the package, it seemed to be a package with a lot of merits for my state. But I guess I, like a lot of other people, can be dazzled at first glance by the impact of the package of measures which have been negotiated and, without thinking the matter through, come to a quick and probably wrong conclusion. I was startled to hear one of my colleagues from the other side of the chamber tonight talk about the package in terms that suggested that, within five years, its value would be greatly diminished. Looking at that package in light of those comments, I had to come to the view that that senator was, to a great extent, correct.I am concerned about a number of aspects of the package, and I am particularly concerned about the way that it is received by other Australians. I think it is unfortunate that it has been suggested that this is the package that will make Tasmania an intelligent island. I was heartened by comments in the Financial Review today which suggested that the island was indeed already an intelligent island. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the people who have gained their qualifications have had to move to mainland Australia to obtain employment which is commensurate with their skills and education. That is the problem: not making Tasmania an intelligent island. So I say that that is an unfortunate epithet.I am very concerned about the way the package has been received elsewhere. The editorial in today's West Australian is edifying, and I want to quote from that. It says, under the heading `PM in Grubby Vote-Buying Politics':The Howard Government has resorted to shabby vote-buying to try to secure the passage of its Telstra legislation through the Senate. Its brazen inducements to Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine to support the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra reveal an administration driven by the dangerous idea that the end justifies the means. And Senator Harradine seems all too ready to sell his vote if the price is right for Tasmania.Prime Minister John Howard says Tasmania needs a bit of help because it has the highest unemployment level in Australia and not much industry. That is humbug. If Mr Howard believed that Tasmania needed special help, why did he not provide it earlier? He left it to the eve of the Senate vote on the Telstra sale to promise a special deal for Tasmania. And he has made the extra money for Tasmania conditional on the Senate voting for the sale proposal. Again, if Tasmania's needs are so overwhelmingly pressing, then it should be helped regardless of what happens to Telstra.Quite right.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Do you oppose the deal?8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Abetz is interjecting. I listened to him without interruption and I would ask him for the same courtesy. Today in the Hobart Mercury , on page 18, the editorial, which supports the package, says:Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley is absolutely correct. The Telstra sale deal stitched up by Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine with the Federal Government is shameless pork-barrelling. The deal will probably upset most mainlanders but it will delight the majority of Tasmanians.There are quite a number of articles in today's papers about the deal, and almost without exception the comments from outside of Tasmania are deprecatory about the deal, particularly the proportion of the social bonus that Tasmania has achieved. I do not oppose any of the initiatives per se. Given that you are going to put together a package of measures, some of them, I suspect, if there was going to be a proportionate distribution of the social bonus, would have gone to Tasmania, though obviously the proportion is in excess of its population base.Let me ask these rhetorical questions, and perhaps Senator Harradine will come into the chamber and answer them. In considering this package of measures, if Senator Harradine was to obtain consideration for his support for the legislation, why was consideration not given, for example, to a proposal that the government legislate to make Bass Strait part of the national highway system? A delegation was in Canberra today, I believe—because of my duties I was unable to be involved in any way in its proposal—seeking the support of the federal government for making Bass Strait part of the national highway system. What could be a more enduring job creation system for Tasmania, strengthening its tourism potential and giving benefits to members of the Australian public from mainland Australia to come to Tasmania and benefits for Tas manians to leave the state, temporarily or permanently, by sea highway at no more cost than the cost of driving on the national highway system from one state to another in the rest of Australia? What could have been more valuable than that?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—We have got that.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Abetz suggests that we have that. I wonder why the delegation was here today. I do not think you know what you are talking about, because we clearly have not got it, and that is why the delegation was here in Canberra today.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—No, it is the passenger cars.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Of course it is the passenger crossing of Bass Strait, and it is clear you do not understand what you are talking about, Senator Abetz. It is the passage of passengers across Bass Strait by sea transport which places Tasmanians and Tasmania at a disadvantage. I guess I am wondering out loud why that was not considered rather than some of the issues that have been considered, needed though they might be. It is a question of priorities.It was suggested in the debate that in lieu of some of these measures—measures which might have a real life of only about five years—it would have been more beneficial for Senator Harradine to have picked up Labor's proposal from the last election, which I believe had the endorsement of the Tasmanian people, that the whole of Tasmania be a local call area zone. That would have meant significant savings to business and consumers in Tasmania, and it would not have run out in five years, because the use of the telephone system will certainly continue. It has been estimated that that would make an ongoing saving of $25 million per year for business and the public generally in Tasmania.I am really asking the rhetorical questions of Senator Harradine, and he may take the opportunity to come in here and talk about whether those matters were considered by him or, if they were not, why they were not. I really do have the concern that, whilst some of these issues appear to have merit at the moment, they may well be issues which do not have the life that some other measures might have had. I do suggest that perhaps getting a benefit for the state of Tasmania of the nature of either of those two initiatives would have been of more value and less likely to draw the criticism that there has been around the country of the deal that Senator Harradine has made with the government. Senator Harradine has no doubt done what he thinks is right. (Time expired)23:08:006009Senate adjourned at 11.08 p.m.Documents60096009The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 7 of 1999.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part—105, dated 11 [6], 19, 21 [3], 24 [2], 25 [8] and 31 [3] May 1999; and 1, 3 [4] and 4 [7] June 1999.106, dated 31 May 1999.Migration Act—General direction under section 499—General Direction No. 8.The following government documents were tabled:Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—Statement and supporting applications of issues—April 1999.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 5 February to 31 March 1999 (1st).Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report—Superannuation entitlements on same-sex couples: Report of examination of federal legislation (HRC report no. 7).National Health and Medical Research Council— Grants for 1999. Report for 1998.Nuclear Safety Bureau—Reports for the periods— 1 July to 30 September 1998 (NSB.QRM 44). 1 October 1998 to 4 February 1999 (NSB.QRM 45).Productivity Commission—Report—No.2—International air services, 11 September 1998.Answers to Questions on Notice6010The following answers to questions were circulated:6010(Question No. 530)5306010Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.6010Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The total cost during the 1997-98 financial year for the provision of newspapers, magazines and periodicals to Ministers within the Industry, Science and Tourism portfolio was as follows:(a) Parliament House office—$21,138.38.(b) home/state ministerial office—$1,480.19.(c) private home—$0.00.6010(Question No. 545)5456010Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:What was the total cost during the 1997-98 financial year of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the minister's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; and (c) private home.6010Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The Minister for Sport and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The response to this question is incorporated in the response to Question No 530.6010(Question No. 559)5596010Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.6010Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) $332,148(2) $368,000(3)(a) (b)FMIS Application Implementation Methodology Study WIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/LFMIS System TrainingWIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/LFMIS SupportWIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/LFMIS Scoping StudyWIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/LFMIS ReviewCOOPERS & LYBRAND(4)(a) DAYS(b) COST PER DAY(c) TOTAL COSTFMIS Application Implementation Methodology Study 531,30669,200FMIS System Training101,40014,000FMIS Support382429,214FMIS Scoping Study72,59018,131FMIS Review4794444,372TOTALS:155154,917(5) (a) $240,000.(b) $182,353.(6) $662,000.6011(Question No. 577)5776011Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department; and(2) What has been the total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.6011Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department was $1,140,563.(2) The total cost to the department in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources was $1,181,510. 6011(Question No. 584)5846011Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MargettsDX5WAG(WA)00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What has the Howard Government done to compensate and settle the claims of former Christmas Islanders who were re-settled and repatriated from the island to mainland Australia and South-East Asia.(2) Has the department complied with Australia's international obligations on human rights or has it discriminated against former islanders of Asian origin in their re-settlement and repatriation from Christmas Island.(3) Considering the compensation made to the South Sea Islanders, Ocean Islanders and Nauru: Why has the Howard Government not compensated the former islanders by government grants, full-time welfare officers, providing funds for building temples of worship or other compensation; and (b) why has the government not granted the former islanders the same status as that of the South Sea Islanders.(4) Why is the department spending taxpayers funds in defending the claims of former islanders for compensation which the Commonwealth of Australia acknowledged it owed to the islanders in 1958 (letter from Secretary, Department of Territories to the Secretary, Department of External Affairs, 26 September 1958) and in the 1970s (statement in the House of Representatives on 12 April 1973 by the Hon WL Morrison, MP on the future of the Asian residents of Christmas Island and second reading speech by Senator the Hon. RG Withers on the Christmas Island Agreement Bill 1976).(5) (a) Is the Minister aware that the repatriation and re-settlement of the former islanders to mainland Australia and South-East Asia was in breach of the human rights of the islanders, contrary to the slavery treaties to which Australia is a signatory and in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975; and (b) what is intended to be done to correct this injustice.(6) Why did the department advise the Department of Territories and Local Government not to set up a scheme of compensation in response to a submission by the islanders to the department on 27 February 1996.(7) Why is the department continuing to waste taxpayers funds in defending the claims of the former islanders of Asian origin considering the international ramifications and the promises made by the Commonwealth when Australia took over sovereignty of the island in 1958.(8) Why has the Government not set up a scheme of compensation for former islanders considering the legal, political and public ramifications nationally and internationally which have arisen from the claims of the former islanders.(9) Does the Government condone racial discrimination against persons of Asian origin in the Territories of Australia, their repatriation without compensation if such persons are Australian citizens or permanent residents and the payment of income and social security benefits substantially less than that allowable under federal awards and legislation.(10) Is the Department aware of the interest that the claims of the former islanders have raised in South-East Asia, particularly in the ministerial departments of the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia.(11) For the period between 1957 and 1980 what profits and surplus were received by the Commonwealth of Australia as consolidated revenue or otherwise from the operations of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, the British Phosphate Commission, their successors or assigns.6012Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:This question was originally asked of the Minister representing the Attorney-General and is substantially similar to question upon notice number 583, asked on 10 March 1999. Accordingly I refer the honourable Senator to the answer to that question.6012(Question No. 594)5946012Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 16 March 1999:Can details be provided of the subsidies paid by the Commonwealth on: (a) home and community care; (b) community aged care packages; (c) low-care residential places; and (d) high-care residential places, for the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years, broken down by state, on a per capita basis for the population over 70 years age, in real terms (ie. 1998 dollars).6012Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The following table sets out actual expenditure on a per capita basis in 1998-99 dollars by State. Since high and low care places did not exist in 1996-97 (when hostels and nursing homes existed) total residential aged care has been reported to allow comparison across years. It should be noted that home and community care expenditure is provided to the States as Specific Purpose Payments to the States and is not a subsidy. The States match Commonwealth funding according to individual State agreements.It should also be noted that Community Care Subsidies and Residential Care Subsidies are based on eligibility through assessed need and availability of places through a demographic planning model. In the case of Residential Care Subsidies the amount actually paid for each resident is dependent upon their care needs and the number of funded places, and so direct comparisons between States are not valid.Actual Expenditure per Person aged 70+ in 1998-99 DollarsNSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAust1996-97Home and Community Care Bill 2287.12344.24308.26391.88310.13336.19335.67987.60319.68Community Care Subsidies34.5230.5034.9139.2438.2448.4450.93139.1735.07Residential Care Subsidies2,028.271,703.561,694.532,098.301,500.552,000.821,452.762,411.051,837.84Actual Expenditure per Person aged 70+ in 1998-99 DollarsNSWVicQldWASATasACTNTAust1997-98Home and Community Care Bill 2289.98351.03323.44389.39312.77338.81350.181,077.91325.53Community Care Subsidies55.1743.3958.8457.7758.0480.7493.98233.1254.73Residential Care Subsidies2,012.931,785.551,791.722,192.781,539.912,040.071,624.522,681.561,885.011998-99 ESTIMATED EXPENDITUREHome and Community Care Bill 2293.56355.15326.35392.43317.18345.07349.051,089.33329.25Community Care Subsidies73.9558.1278.6077.1077.93108.88124.04311.9373.29Residential Care Subsidies2,178.871,931.591,933.012,362.931,669.752,221.631,731.422,897.562,038.546013(Question No. 614)6146013Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:(1) As of 28 February 1999, does the department or any agency in the portfolio have any current contracts let for public opinion polling research; if so, which company or companies, or individuals are these contracts with.(2) Are these contracts for: (a) qualitative polling; (b) quantitative polling; or (c) both.(3) What are the objectives of these contracts.(4) What polling methods are used.(5) What is the budgeted cost for each of these contracts.(6) (a) Which sub-contractors are specified in the contracts; and (b) who requested their inclusion. (7) Were these contracts let through: (a) full tender process; (b) selective tender process; or (c) other (please specify).(8) Does the department or any agency in the portfolio have a contract or sub-contract relationship with the Wallis Consulting group, of King Street Melbourne; if so: (a) what is the nature of that relationship; (b) what are the services being provided by Wallis Consulting; (c) who defined the tasks to be performed by Wallis Consulting; (d) who produced the survey questions to be used by Wallis Consulting; and (e) what is the expected total cost for these services.6013Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) As of 28 February 1999, the Employment Advocate (EA) had a contract with the Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd and the department had contracts with Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd and Australasian Research Strategies Pty (ARSP). Although the work under the original contract with Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd had been completed at that date, the department was negotiating a contract variation for further work. This has now commenced.(2) The information provided under the contracts is both qualitative and quantitative.(3) The contract with Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd relates to freedom of association.The contract with Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd is to provide research to assist with strategic input and effective evaluation of the communications campaign about reforms to the employment services market.The contract with ARSP is to obtain information on the drivers behind public attitudes to further workplace reform. The project is based on VISTA values research methodology, ARSP being the sole Australian supplier of this methodology.(4) Two surveys are being conducted by Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd:* a survey of approximately 1000 employers conducted by telephone and mail questionnaire; and* a survey of 1000 union members conducted by telephone.The employer survey is in the form of a self-completed mail survey returned by mail or fax. Prior to the surveys being mailed out to approximately 1000 employers, telephone interviewers called a sample of business establishments (1600 employers) selected at random from the Yellow pages and Dun and Bradstreet's commercial listing to establish the most appropriate person in the company to respond to the survey. Establishments were chosen to fit industry and size criteria (ANZSIC industry codes excluding agriculture, forestry and fishing; 400 small establishments, 300 medium establishments and 300 large establishments). Companies employing one or two people only at a site were excluded from the study.The union member survey was conducted by telephone with employees at their homes and was run at the same time as the employer survey. The telephone survey method was selected in this instance because postal questionnaires may present difficulties for some employees in relation to literacy and understanding of questions (eg employees who are less educated or for whom English is not their first language).Polling methods used by Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd were focus group discussions, executive depth interviews and telephone interviews.The ARSP project consists of four stages involving a preliminary focus group phase; in-depth interviewing research; conduct of a survey and benchmarking of findings; and follow-up. The first two stages use qualitative methods and the third and fourth use quantitative methods. The third and fourth stages are optional. (5) Budgeted cost for Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd: $99,270Budgeted cost for Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd: $183,450Budgeted cost for the ARSP project: $340,000 plus a maximum of $35,000 for travel.(6) There are no sub-contractors performing work related to the Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd or Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd. No individual sub-contractors are specified in the contract with ARSP. However, the contract notes that ARSP may sub-contract fieldwork to companies which are members of either Interviewer Quality Control (IQCA) or the Association of Marketing Research Organisations (AMRO).(7) The contract with Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd was let through an open tender processThe original contract with Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd was let through a selective tender process with the names of suitable polling organisations supplied by the former Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA).The contract with ARSP was let through a staged procurement process. The department, on behalf of the Labour Ministers' Council, has established a panel of researchers who are available to undertake workplace relations related research projects including market research. The panel was formed through an open national advertisement. Thirty-four researchers submitted proposals to be part of the panel, including ARSP.(8) Yes. (a) As described above, the EA has a contract with the Wallis Consulting Group, Melbourne for the purposes described in the answer to part (3) of the question. (b) The services provided are the conduct of two surveys [outlined in answer (4)] and analysis of data to be supplied in report form to the EA. (c) The EA developed the particulars of the services required under the contract. (d) The survey questions were formulated by the Wallis Consulting Group, in consultation with the EA. (e) $99,270.6014(Question No. 649)6496014Hogg, Sen JohnSenator Hogg7L6QLDALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 March 1999:(1) (a) How many bulk billing medical centres are there located in: (i) Hervey Bay, (ii) Bundaberg, (iii) Maryborough, and (iv) Gladstone; and (b) what are the addresses of these facilities.(2) Do any of the centres offer 24 hour access or provide bulk billing for locum services.(3) (a) How many Medicare offices are located in these centres; and (b) what are the addresses of these offices. 6015Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2)—While the Medicare system captures information in respect of individual provider practice locations, it does not separately record information for medical centres, nor does it record details of centres offering 24 hour access or bulk billing for locum services. As a result, the requested information for the nominated locations is not available.(3) There is one Medicare office in each of the nominated locations. Relevant details of the addresses are as follows:Hervey Bay, Shop 19, Frazer Shores Shopping Centre, Cnr Boat Harbour Drive and Nissan Street, Pialba QLD 4655Bundaberg, 47 Bourbong Street, Bundaberg QLD 4670Maryborough, 385 Kent Street, Maryborough QLD 4650Gladstone, Shop 1, 161 Goondoon Street, Gladstone QLD 46806015(Question No. 668)6686015O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) How many staff were employed in the Coastwatch Branch of the Australian Customs Service as at: (a) June 1995; (b) June 1996; (c) June 1997 and (d) March 1998.(2) How many staff are currently employed in activities relating to the civil surveillance program in the Coastwatch Branch.(3)(a) What was the appropriation for this Branch for the 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years and for activities relating to the civil surveillance program in the Coastwatch Branch in the 1998-99 financial year.(4) What was the actual level of expenditure in the financial years in (3).(5) (a) How many regional offices were operated in the financial years in (3) and (b) where were those offices located.6015Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) June 1995 39.2; (b) June 1996 40; (c) June 1997 39; (d) March 1998 39.1.(2) 41 (63 staff were involved in maritime response and surveillance following the inclusion of the National Marine Unit (NMU) in the Coastwatch Branch in March 1998).(3)Financial YearSalariesAdministrativeAir SurveillanceTotal1995/96$2,336,755$1,070,493$26,850,018$30,257,2661996/97$2,385,176$1,004,600$31,010,300$34,400,0761997/98$2,531,782$930,000$30,760,000$34,221,7821998/99$2,406,029$1,195,007$31,774,100$35,375,1361998/99*$6,468,921$4,679,590$31,774,100$42,922,6111998/99 figure includes an additional $335,000 (admin) for increased helicopter surveillance provided under the National Illicit Drugs Strategy (NIDS).1998/99* includes the NMU appropriation and the additional $335,000 (admin) for increased helicopter surveillance allocated under the National Illicit Drugs Strategy (NIDS).(4)Financial YearSalariesAdministrativeTotal1995/96$2,348,653$26,698,368$29,047,0211996/97$2,417,917$31,774,352$34,192,2691997/98$2,391,258$32,401,000$34,792,2581998/99*$4,445,630$26,308,580$30,754,2101998/99* figure is `year to date' March 1999 and includes NMU expenditure. (5) (a) and (b) There were 4 regional Coastwatch offices in the years 1995/96 through 1998/99 located in Cairns, Broome, Darwin and Thursday Island.6016(Question No. 669)6696016O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) In the 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 calendar years, and to date in 1999, how many vessels were located by the Coastwatch Branch of the Australian Customs Service or operations coordinated by that branch in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone and the Australian Fishing Zone.(2) Can the above information be provided for the following categories: (a) suspect illegal entrant vessels; (b) illegal foreign fishing vessels; and (c) vessels involving illicit drug importations.6016Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The following figures represent the number of sightings by Coastwatch reported to clients. Sightings include Australian Fishing Vessels, Foreign Fishing Vessels, yachts, etc.AEEZ/AFZ1995/96—74,366; 1996/97—98,846; 1997/98—125,273; 1998/99—88,043*.* July 1998 to March 1999(2)(a) SIEV(b) * FFV(c) IDI1995/961471Nil1996/971213031997/981711411998/9915# 494* The FFV statistics relate to apprehended FFV.# The number of FFV shown is for the period July 1998—March 1999. The figure shown for IDI represents the number of operations where Coastwatch assets have been tasked to undertake surveillance activities.6016(Question No. 670)6706016O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) How many civil aviation contractors operated aircraft as a part of the coastal surveillance program managed by the Coastwatch Branch of the Australian Customs Service in the 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years.(2) What was the value of each contract for the above years.(3) (a) How many aircraft did each contractor operate; (b) how many hours did each contractor fly; and (c) what area was each contractor contracted to cover in each of the above years.(4) How many civil aviation contractors currently operate aircraft as a part of the coastal surveillance program managed by the Coastwatch Branch. (5) (a) How many aircraft does each contractor currently operate; and (b) what area is each contractor contracted to cover.(6) How many ocean going vessels were in the Customs marine fleet in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 financial years and as at April 1999.(7) How many flying hours were provided by the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) to the Coastwatch Branch in the years in (6) and what areas did the RAAF cover.(8) How many days were provided by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in the years in (6) and; (b) what areas did the RAN cover.6016Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 1994/95—2 (Skywest and Chopperline); 1995/96—3 (Skywest, Surveillance Australia and Reef Helicopters); 1996/97—2 (Surveillance Australia and Reef Helicopters); 1997/98—2 (Surveillance Australia and Reef Helicopters).(2) 1994/95: Chopperline—$.527m; Skywest—$21m; 1995/96: Skywest—$17.4; Surveillance Australia—$7.5m; Reef—$.9m; 1996/97: Surveil lance Australia—$29.9m; Reef—$.985m; 1997/98: Surveillance Australia—$29.5m; Reef—$1.1m.(3) (a) Skywest—14; Chopperline—1; Surveillance Australia—13; Reef—1.(b)SkywestChopperlineSurv. Aust.ReefTotal1994/9511,7193150012,0341995/965,69706,76446912,9301996/970014,52548115,0061997/980014,33769615,033(c) Civil surveillance service providers to Coastwatch are not contracted to provide specific area coverage. Rather, they are contracted to provide a particular number of both visual and electronic surveillance hours.The exact area covered each year will depend on strategic and tactical surveillance needs identified to Coastwatch by client agencies. In 1994/95 an estimated 29 million square nautical miles were surveilled; in 1995/96 approximately 43 million square nautical miles; in 1996/97 approximately 84 million square nautical miles; in 1997/98 approximately 79 million square nautical miles and in 1998/99 to the end of March 1999, approximately 62 million square nautical miles.(4) 2 (Surveillance Australia and Reef Helicopters)(5) (a) Surveillance Australia—13; Reef Helicopters—1; (b) Refer to 3 (c).(6) 1995/96—5; 1996/97—6; 1997/98—6; April 1999—7.(7) (a) 1995/96—233; 1996/97—255; 1997/98—241; April 1999—208(b) Refer to 3 (c).(8) (a) 1995/96—1833; 1996/97—1786; 1997/98—1725; April 1999—1294.(b) Refer to 3 (c).6017(Question No. 689)6896017Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to review all the perceived threats to world heritage and institute necessary protective measures(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.6017Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1-2)The Australian Government reviewed the potential threats identified by the UNESCO Mission's report on Kakadu and specifically addressed these threats in its report "Australia's Kakadu; Protecting World Heritage" submitted to the World Heritage Committee in April 1999.The Supervising Scientist conducted a full review and prepared a report addressing the issue of scientific uncertainty which was identified in the UNESCO Mission report. Four consultancies were also commissioned by the Supervising Scientist to address issues of hydrometeorological analysis, climate change analysis, surface water storage, and tailings storage. The Supervising Scientist presented his report to the World Heritage Committee in April 1999.Environment Australia was involved in a range of activities including developing and conducting a consultancy regarding potential impacts of dust, developing a consultancy on the potential impacts of vibrations, and undertaking an audit of previous anthropological work in the Jabiluka lease area throughout December 1998 to April 1999.6017(Question No. 690)6906017Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to undertake an exhaustive independent review and further risk analysis of all claims of scientific uncertainty relating to the project.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.6017Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Supervising Scientist undertook a comprehensive review of the claims of scientific uncertainty relating to the Jabiluka project. The executive summary of the report to the World Heritage Committee, which resulted from this review, provides details of the topics, process and findings of the review. A copy of the executive summary has been provided to the honourable senator and additional copies are available from the Senate Table Office.(2) (a) The Supervising Scientist undertook the review, drawing on expertise available within his own organisation and expert advice from a number of scientific institutes in Australia. Scientists from the Bureau of Meteorology, the University of Melbourne, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the University of New South Wales were commissioned to prepare reports on specific topics.(b) The review commenced shortly after the 30 November to 5 December 1998 World Heritage Committee meeting in Kyoto. The report was presented to the World Heritage Centre on 15 April 1999. Copies of the Assessment of the Jabiluka Project, Report of the Supervising Scientist of the World Heritage Committee, Executive Summary are available from the Senate Table Office.6018(Question No. 691)6916018Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian government taken, since December 1998, to ascertain whether any expansion of urban and infrastructure development in Jabiru, as a result of the mine, will be minimal, with the utilisation of existing stock to cater for workers on the project.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.6018Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1 and 2) Plans by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) to expand housing and other infrastructure in Jabiru as a consequence of mining at Jabiluka are being monitored by officers of Environment Australia based in Jabiru.During the period December 1998—April 1999 ERA's local housing needs were being met from existing housing stock and at temporary contractor accommodation re-established in Jabiru in 1996. Specific requirements for additional housing for the Jabiluka project have not been finalised and will be dependent on whether the Ranger mill alternative or the Jabiluka mill alternative proceeds as part of the Jabiluka mine development. In December 1998 ERA announced that production levels at Ranger uranium mine would be reduced effective 31 March 1999 and that there would be a small reduction in staff numbers at the Ranger mine. As a consequence of this, and the current schedule for the development of the Jabiluka mine, it is not anticipated that ERA will need to make a decision about additional housing in Jabiru until the year 2000.The Hon. Bob Collins, Chair of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study (KRSIS) Implementation Team, is having on-going discussions with ERA about housing in Jabiru, and the social impacts on Aboriginal people of development in Jabiru, as a part of his KRSIS work.6018(Question No. 692)6926018Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to ensure that the Interim Cultural Management plan is subjected to independent peer review and has further consultation with traditional owners to protect all sites in the lease area been invited.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.(3) Have the Mirrar people been involved.6018Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Since December 1998 the Australian Government, through Environment Australia, has invited participation in the independent review and further development of the Interim Cultural Heritage Management Plan from the organisations identified in the recommendations of the report by the UNESCO Mission to Kakadu. Environment Australia developed terms of reference for the independent review and is contacting the experts nominated by the organisations identified in the Mission's report.Participation of traditional owners in the development of measures to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage was discussed with the senior traditional owner in March during a meeting with officers of the Office of Indigenous Policy and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. Subsequently, Environment Australia has sought input from the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, the Northern Land Council and the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority in the compilation of an accurate inventory of cultural sites and values to assist with the protection of cultural heritage places on the Jabi luka Mineral Lease, and to participate in reviewing the plan.(2) (a) Environment Australia.(b) Ongoing.(3) The Mirrar-Gundjehmi have not yet agreed to participate in this process.6019(Question No. 693)6936019Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to institute dust and vibration studies to ensure the protection of rock art sites.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.6019Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The dust and vibration studies were scoped and terms of reference developed. Appropriate consultants were identified and engaged to undertake these studies.(2) (a) Environment Australia.(b) March 1999—April 1999.6019(Question No. 694)6946019Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to ensure that existing extensive records of cultural values are complemented by a cultural mapping exercise along the lines recommended by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation mission.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.(3) Were the Mirrar people involved; if so, to what extent.6019Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:In order to ensure that existing extensive records of cultural values were complimented by a cultural mapping exercise, four areas of action were carried out:(A) Research(1) Survey of existing available literature. (2) (a) Environment Australia(b) January—April 1999(3) No(B) Expert Opinion(1) Consultation with anthropological experts.(2) (a) Environment Australia(b) March—April 1999(3) No(C) Consultation with Traditional Owners(1) Meeting held with traditional owners to discuss the development of measures to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage.(2) (a) Office of Indigenous Policy and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.(b) February 1999(3) Representatives of the Mirrar-Gundjehmi attended this meeting.(D) Correspondence(1) Letters to the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, the Northern Land Council and the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority inviting them to provide information on the location and values of cultural sites on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease.(2) (a) Environment Australia(b) March 1999(3) The Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation were invited to provide input on cultural sites.6019(Question No. 696)6966019Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to engage in high level discussions, commencing at the ministerial level, on outstanding issues relating to joint management of Kakadu National Park.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.(3) What was the outcome of those discussions.(4) What was the position of the parties.6019Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) I met with traditional owner members of the Kakadu Board of Management.(2) (a) I did.(b) 2 March 1999 (3) I considered amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 proposed by the traditional owners. Further discussions at officer level have been undertaken. I have agreed to a series of amendments, including the retention of the Director as a separate statutory authority in relation to National Park management.(4) The Board of Management and the Northern Land Council proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill.6020(Question No. 697)6976020Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to confirm government commitment to consultation and cross-cultural dialogue.(2) (a) who conducted this action; and (b) when.(3) What was the outcome.(4) What was the position of the parties.6020Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Government has confirmed its commitment to consultation and cross-cultural dialogue through a range of activities, including:(A)(1) Consultation with the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation.(2) (a) Myself, officers of Environment Australia and the Office of Indigenous Policy.(b) Ongoing(3) A meeting with the Mirrar-Gundjehmi was held on 8 February 1999 in Canberra with officials from the Office of Indigenous Policy and the Department of Science, Industry and Resources.I met with the Mirrar-Gundjehmi on 9 February 1999, providing an opportunity to present their views and raise cultural heritage issues relating to Jabiluka.Follow-up discussions, including a specific meeting at Jabiru in March 1999, were proposed by the Government, and sought again in correspondence to the Corporation in April 1999.(4) The Government has continued to indicate its willingness to meet with the Traditional Owners to discuss the Jabiluka mine project and other relevant issues, in Jabiru or elsewhere, at their discretion. Since February this year, the Gundjehmi have indicated that they wished to defer discussions pending the consideration and outcome of various internal consultative processes.(B) (1) Discussions regarding the Kakadu Regional Social Impact Study (KRSIS) and the establishment of the KRSIS Implementation Team.(2) (a) ERISS(b) February 1999(3) A meeting was held on 18 February 1999 with the Djabulukgu Association at which the Association agreed to be represented on, and support, the KRSIS Implementation Team.The Northern Land Council (NLC) was approached seeking their agreement to a member of ERISS attending a Council meeting in February to discuss KRSIS and other issues relating to Jabiluka. ERISS did not attend the meeting at the request of the NLC.Discussions with the Jabiluka Bininj Working Committee and the Hon Bob Collins (Chair, KRSIS Implementation Team). Discussions centred on plans for establishing the KRSIS Implementation Team, KRSIS-related activities, ERISS research activities on the Jabiluka lease, and the proposed relocation of ERISS to Darwin.(4) The Djabulukgu Association noted that their continuing participation would be dependent on a strong Aboriginal decision-making role in meetings of the Implementation Team. The Bininj Working Committee thanked Mr Collins and ERISS for their briefing and asked to be kept informed of other developments as they occur.(C) (1) Consultations regarding the review of protocols for communication and consultative arrangements between ERISS and the Northern Land Council (NLC).(2) (a) ERISS(b) Ongoing(3) It was noted that the NLC expected to formally review consultative arrangements as part of the review of the Ranger (S. 44) mining agreement in mid to late 1999. It was agreed to defer the development of new protocols until that time, but in the meantime ERISS would keep the NLC fully informed of any discussions and consultation with traditional owners about ERISS work programs.(4) The NLC noted recent steps being taken by ERISS to improve dialogue and communications with Aboriginal people but sought a joint review of current arrangements.(D) (1) Continued communications with Traditional Owners regarding ERISS work programs related to the Jabiluka Mine.(2) (a) ERISS(b) Ongoing (3) The Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, the Djabulukgu Association, the Northern Land Council, and the Jabiluka Bininj Working Committee received regular reports on the activities of ERISS relating to the Jabiluka mine.(4) Reporting from ERISS has received positive feedback from recipients.(E) (1) Other consultation and cross-cultural activities related to this question are provided in the responses to the Honourable Senator's Questions on Notice No. 692 and 696.(2) (a) See above.(b) See above.(3) See above(4) See above.6021(Question No. 698)6986021Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to confirm an ongoing presence of the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist in Jabiru(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.(3) Can an assurance be given that these bodies will stay in place for the duration of the mine; if not, at least for the next 5 years.6021Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1-3)In our response to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee report regarding Kakadu National Park of April 1999, the Government has confirmed that the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (eriss) will maintain a presence in Jabiru. The Institute will maintain a field office and laboratory in Jabiru. Staff will be required to maintain strong communication links with Aboriginal people in the region.The position of the Supervising Scientist and the Institute are established by the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. The Government has no intention of varying the intent or statutory responsibilities prescribed in the legislation. 6021(Question No. 699)6996021Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to seek the views of the Northern Land Council, traditional owners, and the mining company, on potential options for the Koongarra mineral lease pending the outcomes of negotiations with traditional owners on the lease.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.(3) What were their responses.6021Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources wrote to the Chairman of the NLC seeking his advice on Traditional Owners' views on potential options for the Koongarra Mineral Lease. The Minister also wrote to the Managing Director of Koongarra Limited and the Northern Territory Minister for Resource Development seeking their views on the matter.(2) (a) The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources.(b) April—May 1999(3) No response has been received to date.6021(Question No. 700)7006021Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to ensure that mechanisms in place will effectively limit the expansion of Jabiru to prevent any threat to the World Heritage property.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.6021Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1-2)No action has been taken to implement new arrangements to control the development of the township of Jabiru (within Kakadu National Park), as there has been no need to do so.The township of Jabiru has been developed in line with the recommendation of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry that the town be established within Kakadu National Park and be subject to planning principles set out in the Kakadu plan of management. The inclusion of the town in the park was a specific measure taken so that the Director of National Parks and Wildlife could ensure that the impacts of the town and its residents on the surrounding park environment are as small as possible.On 9 March 1999 a new Kakadu plan of management came into effect. This plan details the steps that have to be taken before the Director of National Parks and Wildlife can approve any amendment to the town lease, the implementation of a new or amended town plan, any change in land tenure or land use and any construction or expansion of tourism or other infrastructure development in the town.The plan requires that the Director make an assessment of the expected positive and negative impacts of any proposed change on the park environment and consults with relevant traditional owners and the Northern Land Council about the proposed changes. The Director is also required to take account of the findings of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study.Proposals also have to be referred to the Kakadu Board of Management for consideration in accordance with the Board's statutory decision-making functions. A majority of the members of the Kakadu Board of Management are Aboriginal people representing the traditional owners of Kakadu National Park.The Kakadu plan of management specifically provides that the Director can only approve changes to Jabiru where these are consistent with the wishes of Aboriginal people and where the net benefit of any change outweighs any detriment to the cultural and natural environment of the park.6022(Question No. 701)7016022Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999:With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project:(1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to ensure that the impact of introduced species on the wetlands of Kakadu National Park continues to be managed using best practice approaches.(2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when.6022Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1-2)The Australian Government supports the ongoing best practice management of introduced species in Kakadu National Park. Under the Plan of Management, there are a number of ongoing actions to maintain best practice management, including:* Mimosa and Salvinia program;* Paragrass programs; and* Ongoing information exchange between ERA Environmental Services and Parks Australia in relation to feral pests in the Park.Specific actions relating to the Jabiluka mine site, include:* Ongoing training for ERA staff and technical advice to ERA on weed management provided by Parks Australia;* Site inspections in February and March 1999 by Parks Australia North dealing with weed management issues on the Jabiluka mine site; and* A review of the Draft Weeds Management Plan for the Jabiluka mine site by Parks Australia North. The review is presently under way.6022(Question No. 711)7116022Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator Ferris5L6SALP10 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1999:With reference to the appointment of John Reeves QC in October 1997 to conduct a review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the subsequent report in August 1998:(1) Is the Minister aware that, in the report, Mr Reeves identified as Royalty Associations incorporated Aboriginal associations that receive monies from mining operations and other such sources as park entrance fees.(2) Is the Minister aware that, on p.347 of the report, Mr Reeves states, `the requirements for royalty Associations to account for their expenditure are wholly inadequate for the purpose of revealing the ultimate purposes to which these monies have been put'.(3) Is the Minister aware that one such royalty Association is Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation which at March 1999 had 27 members and is incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act and receives monies as a result of the royalties paid by the Ranger uranium mining operations at Jabiru in the Northern Territory.(4) Is the Minister aware that Mr Blacker, an auditor with KR Blacker and Associates, qualified his audit of the 1996-97 financial year accounts of the Gundjehmi Corporation by expressing concern about inadequate documentation for travel expenses which together with travel allowances totalled over $59 000.(5) Is the Minister aware that Mr Blacker was unable to verify the distribution of members' entitlements, which totalled $626 000 in the 1995/96 financial year and $87 000 in the 1996/97 financial year.(6) Is the Minister aware that the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1998 reveal the following features: (a) although the association received over $600,000 in royalty receipts and Ranger rental and has over $760,000 in liquid assets, there was no distribution of member entitlements; (b) the association of 27 members in 1998 paid wages of over $270,000 and incurred travel expenses of almost $100,000; and (c) advertising expenses increased 30 times to $37 000, consultancy fees increased 30 times to $73 000, motor vehicle expenses increased five times to $30 000 and repairs and maintenance increased 60 times to $43 000.(7) Will the Minister call on the registrar appointed under the Aboriginal Council and Associations Act to investigate the affairs of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal corporation to ensure that the corporation is applying its funds to their proper purposes and complying with the law and its rules and constitution.6023Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes, I am aware that Mr Reeves did indeed, in his report, identify incorporated Aboriginal bodies receiving mining royalty equivalents and revenue from other activities as Royalty Associations.(2) Yes, Mr Reeves did make that finding. However, it should be noted that this finding is not necessarily supported by the government and that the review conducted by Mr Reeves is currently being inquired into by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Any Government decisions about the findings and recommendations of Mr Reeves will await the completion of that inquiry.(3) I am advised that the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation was incorporated on 14 July 1995 under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. Financial records lodged by the corporation with the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations also confirm that it has received income derived from mining royalty equivalents. Those royalty equivalents were derived from the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory.(4) The Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has advised that audited financial information for 1996/97 provided by the corporation, prepared by KR Blacker and Associates—a Darwin based firm of Management and Taxation Consultants, contain a minor qualification with respect to travel expenses. The auditor expressed his qualification in the following terms:"travel expenses need to be better documented. . . ."The auditor also commented in relation to the qualification that he:"accepted assurances from the executive that system changes have been adopted".The Registrar has confirmed that the audit report for the corporation for the following year (ie 1997/98) did not contain any qualification relating to travel expenses.(5) The Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has advised that the corporation's financial records for 1995/96 record $626,300 as being distributed to members. The corporation's auditor commented that:"the trading records declare a substantial amount of funds were distributed to members of the corporation. While it would appear that most of these distributions are well documented it is not practical for the auditor to verify the entitlement or receipt of those distributions". I accept the executive offices (sic) assurance that there are no disputes or discrepancies relating to these distributions".In the view of the Registrar, the comments by the auditor do not constitute a qualification with regard to the distributions to members.With regard to the corporation's distributions to members in 1996/97 of $87,001.94, the auditor qualified his report by stating that:"the scope of the audit did not verify distribution of entitlements and I accept the assurance of the executive that there are no disputes or discrepancies regarding these matters"The Registrar has advised that the auditor's qualification relates primarily to the coverage of the audit that did ". . . not verify distribution. . . " rather than the auditor being ". . . unable to verify the distribution. . . " as asked in your question.(6) The Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has advised me that the corporation's audit report for 1997/98 confirms that:(a) the corporation received $603,279.64 in royalty and rental receipts. There was no record of monies distributed to members.(b) The corporation paid $272,806.57 in wages and expended $99,876.72 on travel expenses and allowances.(c) The Corporation expended $37,076.15 on advertising. The corporation also expended $30,921.09 on motor vehicles expenses. The Registrar also advises that the increases in expenditure incurred by the corporation over those of the previous year, although substantial, did not attract any adverse comment by the auditor.(7) I have noted the Senator's question and point out that it is the Registrar's prerogative to discharge his obligations under the Aboriginal Councils sand Associations Act 1976. The Registrar has advised that the Corporation is in compliance with its reporting obligations under the Aboriginal Councils sand Associations Act 1976. Furthermore, the audit report contained only one qualification that would appear to be unrelated to the questions asked.The Registrar has advised that having regard to the most recent audit report, and in particular the absence of significant qualifications, the current compliance by the corporation with its reporting requirements, and in the absence of recent or specific allegations against the corporation, the Registrar advises that there is insufficient cause to justify an investigation of the corporation's affairs.The Registrar has given me an assurance that, should any allegations or specific concerns relating to the affairs corporation be forthcoming, he would take appropriate action consistent with his statutory responsibilities under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976.6024(Question No. 714)7146024Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 29 April 1999:For all the work funded from the $30 million allocated through the Natural Heritage Trust to the National Land and Water Resources Audit, can the following information be provided: (a) the title of the project; (b) the aim of the project and a brief description, including the geographical area to which it relates; (c) the organisations or individuals carrying out the project; (d) the amount allocated to the project and its starting and finishing dates; and (e) references to any published reports or outcomes from the project.6024Alston, 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:Attached is a list of current and proposed Audit projects provided by the National Land and Water Resources Audit Secretariat which addresses questions (a) to (d). With regard to part (e) of the question, `references to any published reports or outcomes from the project', the Audit is due to deliver its final report by 30 June 2001. No Audit projects have yet been published.ProjectAims and Brief DescriptionGeographic AreaContractorBudget $Start/Finish DateStatusWater AvailabilityTheme 1: Surface and groundwater availability—This theme will characterise and then categorise in terms of water availability, allocation and use, Australia's surface and groundwater resources. Opportunities for further water resource development and management requirements, including environmental flows will be identified.263052Project Development, Management and Evaluation1 Characterisation, Categorisation, Allocation and Use This project aims to characterise Australia's surface water and groundwater management areas in terms of water availability, allocation and use. The degree of resource commitment will be assessed. Management requirements to ensure sustainability will be identified.Australia-widePartnership with State and Territory agencies2350000Dec 98Apr 00Project in progress2 Demand and Potential for Development This project provides a State and Territory agency overview of the opportunities and challenges for water resource development, conservation and management including environmental flows.Australia-widePartnership with State and Territory agenciesSingle contract covering Project 1 and 2Dec 98Apr 00Project in progress3 Coordination, Data Management and ReportingThis project provides technical support to the State and Territory agencies and delivers the database and final reporting outcomes of this National Water Resources Assessment.Australia-wideTender won by Sinclair Knight Merz400000Dec 98Jun 00Project in progress Implementation ProjectThis project aims to trial the work plan outputs for Water Availability. A database and range of information products to underpin the development of the Tasmanian State Water Plan and provide a context for the proposed State Water Legislation will be prepared.TasmaniaPartnership with Tasmania Department of Primary Industries , Water and Environment273000Dec 98Apr 00Project in progressDryland SalinityTheme 2—Dryland salinity—This theme will quantify Australia wide the extent, risks and cost of dryland salinity and identify the most appropriate management actions for various types of catchments. Changes required in farming operations and land use patterns for some case study catchments will be assessed based upon water balance and the level of salinity within that catchment the community is prepared to live with.266704Project Development, Management and Evaluation1 Current ExtentEvaluate existing groundwater and related biophysical and landuse dataAssess current national extentEvaluate trends and predict risk of salinity extent and development in 2020 and 2050BiodiversityAustralia-widePartnership with State and Territory agencies500000Dec 98Jun 00Project in progress1b—InfrastructureShow impacts and costs to infrastructure from salinity developmentAustralia-wide50000Jun 99Jun 00Tender being let1c—BiodiversityEvaluation of impacts on natural vegetation and wetland fauna and floraAustralia-widePartnership with Environment Australia—to be finalised-May 00 (?)Project subject to Minister ial approval2 Catchment ClassificationMaps, reports and database showing catchment classification distribution and giving process models and mitigation options.Identification of drivers and processes—spatial distribution of conceptual process modelsClassification of catchment types and risk assessment optionsManagement options in each typeAustralia-widePartnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences200000Jan 99Oct 99 Project in progress3 Catchment Water Balance and Land Use ImpactsCharacterisation of catchments—hydrologic behaviorWater balance and imbalance distribution evaluation1. Evaluation of different land uses on water balance & development of scenarios2. Implications analysis—link to Capacity for Change (Theme 6)Monitoring, implications and recommendationsRepresentative case studies:Lake Warden , WAWanilla, Eyre Pen , SA* Upper Billabong, NSW* Kamarooka or Burkes FlatPartnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences, CSIRO and State and Territory agencies760000Jan 99Jul 00Project in progress3b—BiodiversityBiodiversity requirements in catchment repairAs above in Project 3Partnership with Environment Australia—to be finalised-Nov 00Project subject to Minister ial approval4 Monitoring SystemsReview of the current monitoring systemRequirements for national strategic decisionsInformation managementRecommendations for a monitoring framework, implementation and managementAustralia-widePartnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences150000Jan 99Jul 00Project in progress5a Implications of Dryland Salinity for AustraliaRecommendations on:Intervention mechanismsMonitoring, data management, R&D requirementsFramework for decision makingLinkages with other land degradation issuesAustralia-wide150000Dec 98Dec 00Tender yet to be let5b coordination and reporting* Technical Coordination of all projects, related initiatives* Final ReportAustralia-wideTender won by Webbnet Services100000Dec 99Dec 00Project in progress Implementation ProjectGroundwater level trends—statistical analysis method and recommendations for salinity management as a framework for improved monitoring and land management.Great Southern, WAPartnership with CSIRO MIS and Ag WA.290000Jul 98Feb 00Project in progressVegetationTheme 3: Vegetation cover, condition and use—This theme will collate and present Australia wide vegetation data within a National Vegetation Information System. The system will build upon the National Forest Inventory and incorporate information requirements for reporting from a forestry [Montreal protocol], Greenhouse and nature conservation / vegetation management perspective.152243Project Development, Management and Evaluation1: Develop core attributes for the NVISA core set of attributes for mapping vegetation will be agreed to by the Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies. This will then enable existing data from a range of sources, periods and scales to be aggregated to a consistent sub-national and national classification for vegetation and condition. Data will be aggregated without compromising the integrity and quality of the original data.Australia-widePartnership with Environment Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, and State and Territory agencies159000Jan 99Jun 99Project in progress2: Access, audit and compilation of digital vegetation dataThis project will collate and audit all vegetation type and condition data, identify major gaps in the vegetation and condition data and develop and implement from existing data an information system providing quick and easy access to vegetation information to government and the public.Australia-widePartnership with Environment Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, and State and Territory agencies1128000May 99Oct 99Project in progress3: Fill gaps—new mapping and surveyTo fill the gaps in spatial, temporal and vegetation and condition attributes in the National Vegetation Information System identified through Task 2.Australia-widePartnership with State and Territory agenciesAS YET UNFUNDEDJul 99Apr 00AS YET UNFUNDED4: Product Specifications, Development and Delivery Define decision support needs of policy makers and develop and deliver vegetation and condition information/ products required by theese policy makers across Government and community.Australia-widePartnership with Environment Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, and State and Territory agencies100000Oct 99Feb 00To start 1999-2000Implementation ProjectExtension of MDBC vegetation M305 which concentrated on woody vegetation to cover non woody vegetation, particularly, native grasslands.Pilot will develop methods that could be used to update the Basincare (M305) database in terms of native grasslands and other non woody vegetation. Walgett Shire, NSWPartnership with NSW State agencies258000Jul 98Dec 99Project in progressRangelands Monitoring Theme 4: Rangelands monitoring—This theme will collate background data and put in place systems to monitor Australia's Rangelands. Monitoring systems will cover attributes defining productivity, landscape function, biodiversity, social, economic and cultural attributes and institutional arrangements.357687Project Development, Management and Evaluation1.1—Ecosystem Function Analysis—frameworkIdentify regional indices of change in ecosystem function of rangeland monitoring site data as a framework for more natural resource based management of rangelands.Australia's RangelandsTender won by CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology28000Oct 98Mar 99Project in progress 1.2—Ecosystem Function Analysis—SA ApplicationProvide regional summaries and images of indices of change in ecosystem function for northern South Australia from 1989 using Landsat satellite data as a framework for extension of the ecosystem based management approach to temperate rangelands..South Australia RangelandsPartnership with SA Department of Environment Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs 50000Nov 98Nov 99Project in progress1.3—Indices if ecosystem function using NOAA dataProvide regional summaries and images of indices of change in ecosystem function for Australian rangeland using NOAA satellite data from 1982 as a context for assessment of change in condition as Australia wide monitoring is implemented..Australia's RangelandsTender won by Environmental Resources Information Network within Department of Environment and Heritage127000Apr 99Aug 00Project in progress1.4—Incidence of extreme climatic events using NOAA dataProvide seasonal characteristics (drought average or exceptional) of each year since 1982 within 8 km x 8 km pixels and summaries within agreed regions as a context for assessment of change in condition as Australia wide monitoring is implemented..Australia's RangelandsTender won by Environmental Resources Information Network within Department of Environment and Heritage16000Apr 99Dec 00Project in progress1.5—Land use IntensityDevelops an information set on total grazing pressure as part of the assessment of change in rangeland condition.Australia's RangelandsTender won by QLD Department of Natural Resources140000Mar 99Oct 00Project in progress2.1—Socio Economic indicatorsIdentify key indicators that depict social economic and institutional factors affecting the sustainable management of rangelands and recommend how these attributes can be incorporated within an Australia wide monitoring program..Australia's RangelandsTender won by Centre for International Economics195000Mar 99Mar 00Project in progress2.3—Socio—Economic data managementAssemble trend data on identified attributes and develop routines to produce summaries as part of the Australia wide monitoring program.Australia's Rangelands100000Apr 00Dec 00Tender yet to be let2.2—Change in land useProvide ongoing on-line access to change in land use since 1957 for the Australian rangeland as part of the assessment of grazing pressure and change in rangeland condition.Australia's RangelandsTender won by QLD Department of Natural Resources60000Apr 99Mar 00Project in progress3—Biodiversity monitoring frameworkProvide and recommend a framework for biodiversity monitoring within the proposed Australia widel rangeland monitoring and reporting framework.Australia's Rangelands125000-Aug 00Tender yet to be let4—Information productsProvide systems and methods that compile monitored information across the issues of production, ecosystem function, biodiversity, social, economic and cultural to facilitate policy/management decision making.Australia's RangelandsPartnership with State and Territory agencies210000Jan 00Dec 00To start 20005—Coordination and ReportingProvide Australia wide region based reports and information on a web-site detailing trends in the condition of the rangeland and providing a shell for the continual entry of information annually as the proposed Australia wide monitoring program proceeds.Australia's RangelandsTender won by Ag WA 210000Jan 99Dec 00Project in progress- Coordination componentImplementation ProjectRangelands condition monitoring (Tropical Savannas) extending Landsat techniques across WA NT and Qld—developing and applying the landscape functional ecology concepts to tropical rangeland condition monitoring. NT WA and QLD RangelandsPartnership with Q DNR; NT DLPE; Ag WA and CRC Tropical Savannas200000Jul 98Mar 00Project in progress Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability Theme 5: Productivity and sustainability—This theme will concentrate on Australia's cropping lands, cost the impacts of degradation on Australia's soils and production and assess their health, productive capacity and development opportunities. Key issues including soil erosion nutrient balance and acidification will be addressed in detail.264521Project Development, Management and Evaluation1: Land use change productivity and enterprise diversificationThis project will provide spatial and temporal trends (1975—1996) in land use change productivity and enterprise diversification within Australia's intensive agricultural areas. The relative contributions that technical advances markets and socio-economic factors have made to these trends will be provided as an input to understanding the role of governments in fostering sustainability..Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasPartnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences and State and Territory agencies500000Jun 99Jul 00Finalising contract2: Benchmarking current rural industry practices and productivity performance and assessing the capacity to implement sustainable management practices . This project will prepare a summary of recent industry practice benchmarks in terms of farming practices, environmental impact, productivity and the capacity of regional industries to implement sustainable management practices as a framework for Government involvelement in fostering further advances in sustainability. . .Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasTenders being evaluated;Partnersh ip with horticulture and dairy industries and R&D Corps. 20000040 0000Jun 99Dec 00Finalising contracts4A: Regional water and nutrient budgetsThis project will provide a quantification of national and regional water balances for different land use systems and climates as an input to assessing net primary productivity.The movement of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) through Australian farming systems and landscapes will be characterised and the delivery to waterways assessed as an input to determining waterway and estuary health..Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasPartnership with CSIRO Land and Water and State and Territory agencies400000Apr 99Feb 01Project in progress4B: Soil erosion and sediment delivery to rivers and estuariesWater-borne soil erosion will be assessed across Australia's landscape. Ranking of Australia's catchments in terms of soil erosion risk sediment delivery and particulate phosphorus transport to rivers and estuarine environments will be undertaken.A catchment-based characterisation of the dominant regional factors contributing to soil erosion sediment yield and particulate phosphorus transport will also be undertaken.Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasPartnership with CSIRO Land and Water and State and Territory agencies600000Apr 99Feb 01Project in progress4C: Distribution of acid soils predicting risks and rates of soil acidification spatially and the benefits costs and options related to alleviating acidification risk in ILZ regionsThis project will: collate data on soil acidification—its extent and rate within an Australian farming systems framework And predict rates and risks of induced acidification and practical corrective options.Undertake a regional benefit-cost analysis for ameliorating soil acidity Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasPartnership with Ag Wa, State and Territory agencies and CSIRO220000Jun 99Mar 00Finalising contract4D: Nutrient balance in regional farming systems and soil nutrient statusThis project will: prepare spatial and temporal trends in on-and off-site N & P balances for regional farming systems (linked to Projects 4A and 4B) and compile data and maps on soil fertility status.Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasPartnership with State / Territory agencies industry and CSIRO Land and Water320000Jun 99Sep 00Finalising contract 5: Integration and interpretation of spatial and temporal trends in land use change productivity enterprise diversification resource condition and socio-economic attributes for ILZ regions of rural AustraliaThis project will: develop methods for producing and delivering integrated information products. These products will draw on the outputs of many of the Audit's projects and Theme areas.Develop techniques for assessing and methods for reporting where sustainable land use is occurring and where it is not. Forecasting where future risks exist.Provide a framework for integrated Government and industry action in developing more productive and sustainable rural land uses?Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasPartnership with State and Territories agencies and selected tenders—yet to be fully defined 400000Jan 00Jun 01To start 1999-20006: Land Resource Monitoring for Agricultural SystemsThis project will develop a monitoring protocol for reporting changes in condition and trend of Australia's land resources. This protocol will be designed to assist community industry and government initiated programs and provide a framework for more rigorous investment in sustainability.Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areas100000Sep 99Dec 00To start 1999-2000Implementation ProjectThis project will develop a land use planning framework to support integrated natural resource management for this intensively used area.Mount Lofty RangesPartnership with South Australian State agencies.313000Jul 98Aug 99Project in progressImplementation ProjectDevelop and provide to the regional Catchment Management Authority an integrated assessment of land use, including natural resource, social and economic components as a basis for regional development and management. Regional data compilation and assessment techniques for natural resource managementWest Gippsland VictoriaPartnership with Victorian State agencies.325000Jul 98Sep 99?Project in progressCapacity for changeTheme 6: Capacity of and opportunity for farmers and other resource managers to implement change—This theme will develop a full set of resource accounts for our natural resources. Social and economic benefits of rural land uses will be determined and the capacity of resource managers to implement sustainable practices will be assessed. Audits of the Australian dairy and horticulture industries from a productivity and sustainability perspective will provide information and suggested actions at the industry level.322223Project Development, Management and Evaluation1.1—Returns to resourceThis project aims to assess the value of the natural resource base and will serve as a basis for measuring the costs of degradation. This will provide a framework and identify where Government and industry action needs to focus attention to return the greatest net benefit from a community perspective. Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areas525000Jun 99Jul 00Finalising contract1.2—Cost of degradationThis project will develop and apply a method to estimate the costs of land degradation to agriculture and provide a framework for more targeted investment in mitigation and control. Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areas435000Jun 99Nov 00Finalising contract1.3—Degradation costs to infrastructureThis project will prepare estimates of costs of degradation to non-agricultural infrastructure. The impacts of salinity, nutrient loads, erosion, turbidity (water quality) will be assess on a range of infrastructure types including transport, roads, bridges, railways; buildings water supply infrastructure and water treatment for rural and urban areas and private industry. This will provide a better appreciation of the off site costs of rural land use and assist in targeting investment and interventions.Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areas200000Jun 99Sep 00Finalising contract 1.4—Non Market CostsThis project focuses on non-market values placed on various attributes of the natural resource base. Such attributes may have both use and conservation value. The emphasis is on private recreational and amenity use values.Australia-wide170000Jun 99Nov 00Finalising contract2.1—Analytical framework: Community and Individual motivationsThis project will define socioeconomic attributes relevant for use in natural resource management decision making and methods for their incorporation in policy making.. Australia-wide50000Jul 99Sep 99Tender being let2.2—Social and economic database SystemThis project will develop an integrated socioeconomic and biophysical natural resource database, on a GIS platform. A range of information products will be development including social and economic community profiles for regional Australia.Australia-wide300000Oct 99Dec 00Tender being let3.3—Dryland SalinityThis project focuses on gaining a better understanding of the decision-making processes and capacity of individual resource managers, particularly farmers, and communities.Representative case studies:* Lake Warden WA* Wanilla Eyre Pen SA(* Upper Billabong NSW* Kamarooka or Burkes Flat200000Jul 99Jul 00Tender being let3.4—Structural AdjustmentThe socioeconomic factors influencing the rate and type of farm structural adjustment will be studied for the agricultural regions of Australia using ABS data at a fine scale. This will extend the work which has been recently completed for the MDBC (Barr and Ridges 1998).Australia-wideIn partnership with Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment80000Jun 99Sep 00Finalising contract4—review and framework of institutional responses and capacities and effectiveness of intervention This project addresses resource management issues at the institutional level, primarily federal and state governments but also other public institutions and local governments. Particularly the project will focus on the management of common property resources and suggest improvements to the way in which agencies manage these public assetts. Estuaries, often an area of institutional inefficiency will be used as the case studyN/A150000Sep 99Aug 00Tender yet to be let5—an overview of findings on the capacity and opportunities to implement change in natural resource management.. This project is designed to take a leadership, coordination and final reporting role in ensuring that the overall objectives of Theme 6 are met. The project has two distinct components. One (5.1) is a coordination task while the other (5.2) involves drawing together, in a concise report, the key findings of the investigations conducted for this theme together with recommendations.Australia-wideTender yet to be let180000Jun 99Dec 00Finalising contractImplementation ProjectThis project was established to develop socio-economic attributes that characterise community capacity to embrace change in a regional planning context. The work is based in the Fitzroy Basin in Queensland.Fitzroy Basin QldIn partnership with Queensland Dept of Natural Resources.375000 (Jointly funding Theme 7 Implementation Project)Jul 98Feb 00Project in progressEcosystem Health Theme 7: Waterway estuarine catchment and landscape health—This theme will assess the condition and trend of our catchments rivers estuaries and landscapes, particularly from the public resource perspective. The theme will provide a report card on the aggregate impact of land uses on our natural resources and recommend priorities for remedial works protection and management.387682Project Development, Management and Evaluation 1: Surface water qualityProvide a national picture of surface water quality (Electrical Conductivity pH Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus and turbidity) and recommend development of Australia wide standards and reporting systems..Australia-wideIn partnership with State and Territory agencies and the SoE Unit of Environment Australia370000Jul 99Mar00Finalising project plan and contracts2: Waterway ConditionDevelop a national approach for waterway classification report on the condition of waterways in Australia and identify waterways where remedial or protective actions are of high priority. Australia-wideIn partnership with State and Territory agencies and the National River Health Program managed by Environment Australia705000Jul 99Dec 00Finalising project plan3: Estuaries inventory, Trends; guidelines and implications for estuary managementProvide the first Australia-wide baseline data set on estuary condition and recommendations for improved protective management, priority remedial actions, works, policy development and R&D requirements.Develop and apply a rigorous approach to the assessment of the condition of Australia's estuaries and the setting of priorities for activities such as works policy development remedial actions and protectionAustralia-wideIn partnership with CRC CZEWM UQ CSIRO Land and Water CSIRO Marine AGSO FRDC675000Aug 99Dec 00Finalising project plan6: Landscape health assessmentAssess the status trends condition and management requirements of each of Australia's IBRA bioregions providing recommendations from a nature conservation protection and management perspective. Australia-wideIn partnership with the National Reserves Systems Group of Environment Australia and State and Territory agencies and the25000Jul 99Dec 00Finalising contract7: Riverine vegetation scoping studyIdentify the integrity of riparian corridors across the Australian landscape and identify key areas requiring revegetation or improved management.Australia wide50000Jun 99Aug 99Finalising contract8: Integration and Catchment scale reportingProvide assessments of catchment condition ensure that appropriate and useful products are put in the hands of users (in particular States and the catchment management community) and provide a ready means of monitoring catchment condition post Audit.Australia-wide200000Mar 01Tender yet to be let.Implementation ProjectCatchment Health in the Fitzroy Basin.Developing methods to assess catchment condition building on waterway and estuary condition and linking water quality to catchment land useFitzroy Basin QldIn partnership with Queensland Dept of Natural Resources.See Theme 6 Impl. Proj.Project in progress Natural Resource Information Management Data management—This set of activities will negotiate institutional arrangements for the sharing of and access to natural resource data Australia-wide and build an Australian Atlas by which Audit and related natural resource information can be displayed and interrogated. Land use mapping Australia-wide as a framework for resource accounting and mapping and modelling of Australia's soil properties will complete the fundamental data sets developed by the Audit.714454Project Development, Management and EvaluationAustralia-wide land use mappingDevelop a spatially consistent land use data set based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Agricultural Census. Cconsistent land-use information datasets at the national level will enable interpretations of a wide range of land degradation sustainability and productivity issues.Australia-wideIn partnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences in collaboration with CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology and State and Territory agencies.960000Nov 98Jan 00Project in progressCoordination of detailed land use mapping projectsProvide scientific coordination of detailed land use mapping projects geocoding of the Gippsland region by ABS and development of specifications for mapping land-use type commodities and land management practices which can be applied consistently across the continent. This will provide a framework for land use mapping Australia wide at the resource allocation and management scales required by Local Government.Australia-wideIn partnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences in cooperation with the Australian Bureau of Statistics and State and Territory agencies406364Nov 98Jan 00Project in progressLand use mapping—Gippsland region VictoriaDevelop and pilot geographically-referenced land-use type commodity and land-management-practice datasets across the East and West Gippsland CMA areas.Gippsland region VictoriaIn partnership with Victoria Department of Natural Resources & Environment135000Apr 99Jan 00Project in progressLand use mapping—Fitzroy Catchment QueenslandDevelop digital land use datasets and supporting databases for the Fitzroy River Catchment according to nationally agreed specifications. The detailed land use mapping will complement the national-scale mapping project and demonstrate methods for local government required scale of mapping.Fitzroy River Catchment area QueenslandIn partnership with Queensland Department of Natural Resources200000Mar 99Mar 00Project in progressLand use and vegetation mapping—Western AustraliaDevelop pre-1750 vegetation and present vegetation maps of Western Australia attributed according to agreed national standards. Prepare a land-use map for Western Australia compatible with agreed national standards for land use mapping.Western AustraliaIn partnership with Western Australia Department of Agriculture and Department of Conservation & Land Management535000Jan 99Aug 00Project in progress Australian Soil Resources Information SystemCompile soil resource properties information for the more intensively used agro-ecological zones of Australia using the best available information.Australia's cropping and intensive agricultural areasIn partnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences in collaboration with CSIRO Land & Water and State and Territory agencies.1359400Jan 99Oct 00Project in progressOn-line Natural Resources Atlas of AustraliaDevelop the first phase of a web-based system to display fundamental data layers and Audit products. Australia-wideIn partnership with Environment Australia70000Oct 98Jun 99Project in progressSpecify framework database—NSWList and describe fundamental NSW datasets. To facilitate access to datasets required by Audit projects. NSWIn partnership with NSW Department of Land & Water Conservation7000Jun 98Mar 99Information being used for decision-making in relation to data access for Audit projects.Specify framework database—SAList and describe fundamental South Australia datasets. To facilitate access to datasets required by Audit projectsSouth AustraliaIn partnership with South Australia Department for Environment Heritage & Aboriginal Affairs17000Jun 98Jan 99Information being used for decision-making in relation to data access for Audit projects.Specify framework database—QldList and describe fundamental Queensland datasets. To facilitate access to datasets required by Audit projectsQueenslandIn partnership with Queensland Department of Natural Resources20000Jun 98May 99Information being used for decision-making in relation to data access for Audit projects.Specify framework database—ACTList and describe fundamental ACT datasets. To facilitate access to datasets required by Audit projectsAustralia Capital TerritoryIn partnership with ACT Department of Urban Services10000Jun 98Apr 99Information being used for decision-making in relation to data access for Audit projects. Specify framework database—WAList and describe fundamental Western Australia datasets. To facilitate access to datasets required by Audit projectsWestern AustraliaIn partnership with Western Australia Department of Land Administration10000Oct 98May 99Information being used for decision-making in relation to data access for Audit projects.Specify framework database—CommonwealthList and describe fundamental Commonwealth datasets. To facilitate access to datasets required by Audit projectsAustralia wideIn partnership with Australian Surveying & Land Information Group Department of Industry Science & Resources23000Jul 98Dec 98Information being used for decision-making in relation to data access for Audit projects.Miscellaneous computing tasksCarry out miscellaneous computing database and product generation tasks in support of Audit Management Unit and Audit projects.In partnership with Bureau of Rural Sciences10000June 99June 00Data Library, Data Licencing and Atlas developmentDefinition, design and implementation of data Library, data licensing and Australian Natural Resources AtlasAustralia wide1343000May 99Jun 01YET TO BE ALLOCATEDCommunicationThe Communication sub-program promotes and reports on the progress of the Audit to stakeholders by undertaking planning, product development and promotional activities and encourages feedback on Audit initiatives to:* Inform and report* Promote* Facilitate integration and collaboration between other relevant initiativesAustralia-widePlanning and evaluationThe Audit Communication Strategy (November 1997) and Implementation Plan (March 1998, reviewed and updated February 1999):* Identified key Audit stakeholders and their information needs* Identified information products-electronic, print and aural to fulfill stakeholder needs* Identified review, evaluation and monitoring processes and products* Planning and evaluation tools Australia-wideProject SupportConsult ancies12738729 613Nov 97-June 01Nov 97- June 017 consultants used to date. Contracts awarded via LWRR DC Consultant Register; competitive tenderingProductsTo create a range of innovative, timely and readily available Audit information products to inform stakeholders regarding the progress and outcomes of the Audit Program.Australia-wideProject SupportConsult anciesAudit WebSite-Phase 1 & 2Phase 3—Tender won by EarthWare SystemsProduct ion of printed/ electronic products10000022 18703001 30129000 Nov 97-Jun 01April 98-June 30 1999July 99-Jun 01Mar 98—Jun 018 consultants used to date- LWRR DC Consultants Register; competitive tendering PromotionTo promote knowledge of, commitment to and additional collaborative opportunities via targeted promotional campaigns using the media, electronic mailing lists, printed mailouts, briefings and seminars and conference programs.Australia-wideProject SupportConsult ancies awarded via LWRRDC Consultants Register:Photogra phy:Distribu tion:Media Monitoring:57897991 03 Dec 97Jun 019 consultants used to date- LWRR DC Consultants Register; competitive tenderingPROGRAM ADMINISTRATIONProgram Implementation and Decision SupportProgram initiationPreparation of Audit Strategic Plan; methods papers; initiation workshops and Audit Management Unit establishment438445Sep 97Oct 98Water InfrastructurePreparation of a guideline to assess water infrastructure development proposals120000Jul 99Jun 99Draft report prepared.Decision SupportWorking with agencies to ensure Audit information products are applied in a policy framework.223928On goingProgram Reporting and EvaluationCoordination—Advisory Council Technical Working Group and Reference GroupsAdvisory Council, Technical Working Group and Reference Group meetings510757Strategic Plan Annual Operational Planing and Annual ReportingPreparation of Strategic Plan Annual Operational Planing and Annual Reporting146994Program EvaluationProgram Evaluation—mid term and final program evaluation; Preparation and publication of Audit final report782339AdministrationLWRRDC Service AgreementOffice services, accommodation and equipment.614086Audit Management UnitNon project related expenses1011241TOTAL