1999-06-303913SENATE683701999-06-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills6837s1946837Debate resumed from 3 December 1998, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.09:31:006837Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I present the explanatory memorandum relating to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] .09:32:006837McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I would have liked to have seen the replacement explanatory memorandum; nonetheless, I will press on. This morning we are dealing with two extremes in the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] . The first is that the bill has been around for some three years and, when it was introduced, in a slightly different form, it was said to be urgent. Yet it lay on the Notice Paper and was not passed in the last parliament. It has been reintroduced and it was subject to a report by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—again as a matter of some urgency—earlier in the year. The committee reported in April. Yet here we are on the last day of this session of the parliament being restricted in the time allowed to debate the very important matters contained in the bill. On the one hand there was no hurry and, on the other, there was a tremendous hurry.There is a report which remains secret—and the arrogance of the government is unforgivable—which we understand was delivered to the Prime Minister some time last week by the secretary to his department, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, on the matter of people smuggling. The report has not been released publicly, it has not been given to the parliament, and the minister and the Prime Minister have not had the decency to show it to the opposition. Yet we are expected to support the recommendations that, we are told, emanate from that.We are asked to give bipartisan support to the very important matter of protecting Australia's borders. Despite the insults, the opposition is prepared to give that bipartisan support. We know what is involved in this, we know the urgency that is involved and we make no bones about the fact that we are going to support the very necessary amendments that will be made with the passage of these amendments to the Migration Act. We would have appreciated being taken into the confidence of the minister and being given the trust of seeing what was in Mr Max Moore-Wilton's report. We welcome the report and the government's actions, although they are very late.The matter of people smuggling is not something that is new to Australia. It is not something that has just happened. It was a matter that was addressed by previous Labor governments in their terms of office. They took steps to try to curtail the problem. However, the problem is almost out of control. In the last financial year, and today is the last day of that financial year, some 40 boats have come onto our shores illegally, many at the behest of people smugglers—people who are profiteering from trafficking human beings around the world and to Australia. There was a recent episode in Western Australia where a number of people were left on Ashmore Reef. That is a particularly isolated and desolate part of the world and those people were left to provide for themselves. It is just not good enough. The government is taking some action through the amendments in this bill, and heavy penalties will be imposed upon those who are caught and convicted of people smuggling.I mentioned that people smuggling is not something that is new. As a matter of fact, on 22 June last year I spoke in this place about people smuggling and mentioned one of the downsides of people who are convicted of people smuggling—those who, in some cases, make a profit from it. Not only do they make a profit by trafficking the people to Australia but also, whilst they are in prison, they still make money. A magistrate in Broome made mention of the fact that internment was not in itself a hindrance to those who wanted to engage in that awful trade. While some persons were interned in prisons in Western Australia—that is effectively where I was talking about—they were paid a daily rate. That daily rate equated to the rates that people might have been paid back in their home country. They were provided with a bed, accommodation and food and there was little expenditure. Therefore, they were able to transfer that money into goods and take the goods back to their home country.I am not sure whether we are addressing all of those matters in the provisions of this bill, but nonetheless we welcome what the government belatedly is proposing to do in the area of people smuggling. We recognise that it is not something that is going to be solved merely by the passage of these amendments. Vigilance will be required. Hopefully, some of the other provisions that were announced last Sunday by the Prime Minister will go a long way towards ensuring that that vigilance is enhanced and increased. But it could have been done many months ago. The shadow minister for immigration, Mr Sciacca, has already made many public announcements of what was required. It did not require three months of investigations by a person we are told is exceptionally busy, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to come up with suggestions. It could have been done with bipartisan support earlier in the piece, but the government chose its own pathway to do it.I want to move back to the main provisions of the other bill and talk in some little detail about that. I am very aware of the time and the fact that we are on the last day of sitting of the Senate. I am uncomfortable about that, but nonetheless there are a few markers that ought to be put down on a matter that has been around now for some three years. It relates to the handing over of a letter to persons who were held in detention in Port Hedland. There was a number of legal actions in the Federal Court of Australia and indeed in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in regard to that matter.What is not known, though, is that a behind-the-scenes—not necessarily secret—arrangement was entered into between the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—although it was not a signed, legally binding document—about how this matter could be handled pending the result of the court case and pending the passage of the bill. I raise this because the opposition have been criticised for their stance on the bill. We have been criticised because we are supporting what the government is doing in the bill. I argue that the protocol that was entered into between the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, even though it was not a signed, sealed and delivered protocol, is doing very much the same thing as the bill is doing. While it suits HREOC—and I think it was a HREOC document—to agree informally about how problems in the area of communicating with detainees could be handled, there is nonetheless a need for legislation to ensure that everybody knows the rules in handling matters where communication is needed with individuals.I do not want to get into the hyperbole of saying that lawyers were soliciting for clients in the delivery of mail, but the matter cannot be avoided. The first HREOC letter that was sent to the person from the boat Teal did in fact include the name and telephone number of a lawyer. HREOC later removed the name of the lawyer, but in the first instance it did include that. The person who tried to make the first approach to the detainees from the Teal was a lawyer who was working for the RACS people, the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, from Victoria.We believe that the bill could and should have been passed in 1996. It should not have been allowed to lie on the Notice Paper for a further two years after that. It should have been debated very early in this session of parliament. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee did report in April of this year. It should not have been left until the last day of the session in order to deal with it in this place. Although we are in agreement with it, we would have liked more time to explore those matters that are contained in the bill and the abounding issues that arise from it.We are happy to give bipartisan support to the government in its attempt to halt that dreadful trade of people smuggling. We wish the measures that are going to be put in place well. We hope that it will stop that dreadful trade, or certainly limit it, and that next year when we stand in this place at this time we will not see the same percentage of boats coming into Australia that has come in over the last 12 months. I am going to finish my remarks now. I would have liked to use my full time, indeed I could have used the full time, but I am anxious to let other honourable senators participate in the debate.09:43:006839Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The purpose of this legislation, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] , is to amend the Migration Act to ensure that there is no obligation on the minister or any officer to provide a person in immigration detention with an application form for a visa unless the detainee specifically requests one, and to ensure that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Ombudsman are prevented from delivering sealed envelopes to new arrivals unless they are specifically requested to do so by the detainees. The bill we are considering today is virtually the same as Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996, which was allowed to lapse before it was fully debated by the parliament. In 1996 the Democrats said that they would oppose that bill and we are opposing this one today.The purpose of the bill today, as with the previous one, is to amend the Migration Act in response to the decision of the Federal Court in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission v. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs case back in 1996. This case centred around the department's refusal to give the Refugee Advice and Casework Service access to the unauthorised arrivals on the basis that none of the detainees had specifically requested it. As a result, the Refugee Advice and Casework Service lodged a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which found that the department may have been in breach of a section of article 9 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission subsequently forwarded a sealed letter to the department requesting that it be forwarded to the detainees, pursuant to paragraph 26(b) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, suggesting that they might want to seek legal advice. The department refused to pass on the letter, however, on advice from the Attorney-General's Department that the provision did not require them to do so. An application was filed in the matter and the judgment was handed down on 7 June 1996. According to the minister, it is necessary to clarify the rights of certain people who are in immigration detention in response to this case because the ruling has encouraged refugee advice services to attempt to access all detainees or all boat people in order to engage them in unwarranted, lengthy and expensive processing. Clearly such an approach is, in the minister's assessment, unacceptable.The minister said that section 189 of the Migration Act makes it quite clear that non-citizens who do not hold a valid visa must be detained. He also noted in his second reading speech that the onus is on unlawful citizens who arrive without a visa to advise officials as to why they have come to Australia and if they wish to seek legal advice. Section 256 of the Migration Act makes provision for access to legal advice by persons in immigration detention, but only where the persons in detention actually request legal advice. The amendments in this bill are designed to ensure that the interpretation I have just outlined actually prevails.As I have stated, the Democrats are opposing this bill today because there is strong and widespread opposition to its adoption, and the Democrats as a party have objections to the principle that the bill tries to enforce and entrench in the legislation. The main concerns which have been raised, both within the Senate committee inquiry into this bill and outside it, include the lack of knowledge that many newly arrived persons have about Australia's legal system and about the existence of human rights organisations such as HREOC and the Ombudsman. We are also concerned about the removal of HREOC's and the Ombudsman's power to communicate with detainees unless they are complainants and the possibility that measures contained in this bill are in breach of Australia's international human rights obligations.Many organisations working with newly arrived detainees have explained how the effect of requiring these people to specifically request legal advice from human rights bodies such as HREOC and the Ombudsman is to deny detainees access to these services and organisations altogether. That is the practical effect of the measure that is to be implemented here. This is because of the barriers most new arrivals face as a result of the inhumane practices they have experienced in their countries of origin and the fact that they often speak little or no English. Few detainees seeking refugee status would be aware that the legal and human rights organisations exist at all, let alone be in a position to consider exercising their right to access these services. In light of current policy and practice in this area, the Democrats have to question this government's commitment to justice and human rights when it comes to immigration related detainees. Surely any system which offers legal advice and access to human rights bodies but withholds information on the existence of these services is in reality potentially offering nothing. I urge the government to reform current policy and practice to ensure that all newly arrived detainees are fully informed of the legal and human rights services which are available to them and are informed in a language which they understand and in a manner which is accessible.The government is also moving a number of amendments today to this bill to address the incidence of people smuggling, which has gained some media attention in recent times. These amendments are designed to increase the penalties for those involved in people smuggling and to allow police investigating people smuggling to intercept telecommunications. The government wants to increase the existing penalties to serve as a greater deterrent to those involved in trafficking in people. The current penalty for those prosecuted for assisting with people smuggling is a maximum of two years imprisonment. The proposed amendments increase the penalties to between 10 and 20 years, depending on the offence. They also allow police to obtain warrants to intercept telecommunications to investigate people who are suspected of people trafficking.The Democrats note, and welcome, the minister's assurances that these amendments do not in effect introduce any new offences; they simply increase the penalty for those offences which already exist. We acknowledge that the minister has said that the higher penalties will be aimed squarely at the profiteers from people trafficking, while people who are the subjects, or in many cases the victims, of this practice almost without exception will continue to be simply removed back to the country they came from without being prosecuted; presuming, of course, that they do not meet any of the requirements under the refugee and humanitarian program to enable them to stay here in Australia.The Democrats share the government's concerns and the community's concerns in relation to the practice of people smuggling, and we are quite willing to support these amendments that the government is bringing forward today, despite the Democrats' overall opposition to the bill which the amendments are being attached to. We hope these amendments will go some way towards reducing the pain of those who have been exploited and smuggled into Australia only to find themselves promptly returned to their country of origin. Hopefully the amendments will serve to reduce the incidence of this practice and send a message to those who are involved in organising it that it is not a profitable activity and not an activity that is likely to be of worth to them.It is an area of concern in relation to the refugee and humanitarian program, and the immigration program more broadly, and it is one where the Democrats are willing to assist in a parliamentary sense in ensuring that measures are taken to address the practice. The danger, of course, is in linking the practice to wider issues relating to the humanitarian program, and I do express some concern about the practice in recent times of trying to link the incidence of people smuggling to broader issues relating to the refugee and humanitarian program, and particularly trying to link it to other actions of the government in relation to the judicial review bill. That bill seeks to limit people's access to the legal system and to ensure that their legal rights are able to be protected through the legal system.The Democrats' concerns about that measure remain. We do not believe that there is a particularly strong link between the people smuggling issue and the government's efforts in relation to the judicial review measure, which the Democrats continue to oppose. The fundamental issue in relation to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] that we are debating today is the basic principle of ensuring that people are able to access their legal rights and know what rights they actually have. The Democrats support the amendments attached to the bill that have been brought forward fairly recently to try to address the problem of people smuggling, but we continue to oppose the broader purpose of the bill.We have quite a strong degree of concern about the principle and the effect of this bill, particularly the fundamental message that it sends and the fundamental impact of the legislation. It is quite an absurd approach to suggest that people have legal rights when they are in Australia but that they can only access them if they actually know that they have them and realise that they can ask for them. The core principle that is being put forward in this legislation is not quite the same as suggesting that people have to know the magic words, the passwords or some hidden code before they can get access to legal assistance, but it is not far off it in many cases, particularly for people who have no knowledge of Australia's legal system or of their legal rights, and speak little or no English. In those circumstances, this bill is setting up a situation in which people are in detention in Australia and have legal rights but are not able to find out about those legal rights unless they realise that they have them and know that they can ask for assistance in relation to them. It is a bizarre and circular approach. The government is trying to implement in legislation a catch-22 situation. Whilst that may reflect current practice in many cases, that does not make it acceptable, in the Democrats' view.It is important to emphasise that many people in this situation have been through a lot of hardship and are in an extremely difficult personal situation, and one which I am sure none of us would like to be in. It is probably now appropriate to shift from the legal and technical aspects of the legislation and look at the reality of what it means for people. These people are in difficult situations. They are in detention in Australia—in a strange country—and most probably in a situation that they did not expect to be in. Basically, an extra barrier is being put in their way in terms of finding out what their rights are.In any circumstance, it is a dangerous practice to try to make it more difficult for people to find out what their legal rights are, but when individuals are in a circumstance which is obviously much more dire than the circumstances that the average person is in anywhere in the world, let alone in Australia, it is all the more reprehensible to make it harder for them to find out what their legal rights are and to access those legal rights. It is a curious and very dangerous principle. From the Democrats' perspective, we do not see why a principle such as that should be applied in migration legislation or in legislation that impacts on people in detention in Australia and not on other people in the community—whether in Australia or throughout the world.People have basic legal rights within Australia. That is something that, as a society and as a parliament, we try to ensure. As a country and as a society, we have signed on to, recognise and, I presume, support basic human rights principles and international legal obligations, not just through international covenants but through the understanding that, as a society, we support basic principles such as people having access to information about their legal rights. In the Democrats' view, putting in a legal impediment, as this legislation seeks to do, to prevent people from finding out what their legal rights are—unless they know that they have them, know that they can ask for them and know whom to ask to find out about them—is quite unacceptable and is a dangerous precedent and practice.I wish to put on the record quite strongly the Democrats' concerns about, and opposition to, the principle contained in this legislation. It may well be that, following the passage of this legislation, the practice that applies to people in detention in Australia is not greatly different from the practice that operates now because of the protocols, agreements and procedures that were put in place following the court case in 1996. To that extent, I suppose it is simply entrenching in law a practice that the government is keen to ensure happens anyway. From the point of view of a legal principle and a principle of civil rights, it is a very inappropriate move. From the Democrats' point of view, it would be more desirable if we sought to change the practice that operates at the moment rather than entrench it in law.During the Senate committee hearings into this legislation earlier this year, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission expressed great concern about and great annoyance—I think it would be fair to say—at the fact that this legislation is being proceeded with. Administrative measures can be modified much more easily over time to deal with the reality and to ensure that basic commitments and basic principles are met. It is a different matter altogether to entrench in legislation a principle such as this, and this is quite a sad day for our overall migration law.The area of migration law and our humanitarian program is difficult. I do not seek to sound purist about the whole thing or to suggest that the issue of illegal non-citizens and our onshore humanitarian program is a simple one. It is difficult and it is for that reason that I, on behalf of the Democrats, sought to have that whole issue examined more broadly by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. From my perspective, as a person involved in that inquiry, I am very keen to approach that with an open mind and keen to work constructively with people from all sides of this Senate to try to look for ways to improve the operation of our program and to recognise the difficult issues that the government and the department have to deal with in relation to the refugee and humanitarian program.It is not simple. Difficult decisions have to be made. Despite acknowledging that, to take measures such as this that, in the Democrats' view, really do, firstly, send a bad message and, secondly, put in place quite a dangerous and inappropriate legal principle is not the way to go. I reiterate the Democrats' opposition to the overall bill while once again emphasising that we support the very recent amendments that have been brought in. The bill has been around for three years or so, while the amendments have been around for perhaps three days or a week. We certainly support the amendments as a measure to try to address the people smuggling issue. However, we continue to be opposed to the legislation to which the amendments are attached. We express our disappointment that other parties in this chamber have seen fit to support it.10:02:006842Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—There is a certain sense of deja vu today. We are dealing with the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] , which has one aim: to remove the statutory right of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, or HREOC, and the Ombudsman to deliver sealed envelopes to people held in immigration detention. The reason for the sense of deja vu is that, almost exactly three years ago in almost exactly the same circumstances, my former colleague ex-Senator Chamarette spoke to very similar legislation. It was on the last day of the last sitting of that Senate in 1996. I will get back to that later.The Migration Act states that a person in immigration detention does not have the right to be informed of their legal rights. This is in section 192. It says in section 256 that a detainee must first request legal advice before the department is obliged to provide it. The department also typically prevents lawyers and others from informing detainees of their legal rights. A loophole is that both the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Ombudsman Act allow for statutory bodies to deliver sealed envelopes to persons in detention. It is assumed that in some way this correspondence will inform detainees of their legal rights.In 1996 the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, or RACS, sought to inform boat people in Port Hedland about their legal rights. The department refused to deliver the letter since the detainees had not requested legal advice. RACS made a complaint to the commission, who subsequently wrote to the detainees. The department refused to deliver this letter also. The commission commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against the department, seeking to compel the department to deliver the letter. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission won the case. So not only did they have the right to do it but it was believed they had an obligation to do it. The bill seeks to close this loophole. HREOC and the Ombudsman will not be able to deliver sealed envelopes to detainees, unless detainees have initiated the contact, if this bill goes through.Let us look at the history of the bill. On 20 June 1996, less than two weeks after the Federal Court's decision, the government introduced Migrant Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996 into the Senate. It is funny that, when we talk about Aboriginal rights, if we ever get them at all it takes forever for governments to think about them. But if we have a situation where we want to take away the rights of immigrants or refugees, we can get it just like that. This is one of those occasions. Two weeks—boy, it must have been some sort of record.On 28 June 1996 the government was successful in having this bill and the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996 exempted from the cut-off motion. So not only did they have a bill produced very quickly but they also organised it, with the assistance of the opposition, so that the community and the parliament did not have the ability to properly scrutinise the bill. The bill went in within two weeks and was exempted from cut-off. On 28 June 1996 several senators gave second reading debate speeches, but the debate was interrupted by the Senate rising. That was on a Friday. I believe the Senate was sitting an extra day to fit in the government's legislation program of the day. That sounds familiar as well. We cannot of course sit an extra day after today because constitutionally we will turn back into pumpkins—at least, people like me will.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—It might be an improvement for some.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Yes, I think so. Let us look at the history of the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] . On 3 December 1998 the bill was reintroduced into the Senate. On 9 December 1998 it was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. On 21 April 1999 the committee report was tabled, and there was a Greens and Democrats minority report to that committee report. The Australian Democrats have indicated they will be voting against this bill outright and do not intend to move amendments. We have, of course, heard of the government's amendments in relation to trafficking in people, and as this is an issue which is not about punishing refugees—it is about punishing those people who would seek to profit from the heartbreak of potential refugees—we have no objection to this. Senator McKiernan has spoken and I notice that Senator Cooney is on the list as well, but Labor has indicated that it will be voting in favour of the bill. One reason, I guess, could be that the abovementioned Federal Court case was commenced under the Labor government.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—No, it was not. The letter was delivered after the election.DX5Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTS—Senator McKiernan indicates that the letter was delivered after the election. I want to talk about some of the issues involved here. We have so clearly seen examples that knowledge is power. With a lack of knowledge, potential asylum seekers are put in a position of powerlessness before the Australian legal system. `A right about which people are ignorant is meaningless. A door without a key is a wall.' That is an opinion from Desmond Manderson, from Macquarie University, which was mentioned in the Age on 28 June 1996.These people cannot be expected to know either their rights under the Australian law or how to exercise these rights. How could they be expected to know? They may have very little English language comprehension. They may very understandably have a distrust of authorities. They may have no prior knowledge of Australia's legal system, let alone the Migration Act. They may be isolated from the wider community—they are isolated from drop-in community centres, friends and even from other well-seasoned asylum seekers. They may have cultural differences and could be suffering from the effects of trauma, confusion or depression. Now the government wants to legislate against even the commission and the Ombudsman giving even a hint of assistance. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission concluded from their study of detained asylum seekers:A large proportion of detainees, particularly those from the People's Republic of China, did not have a clear understanding of the role of lawyers in democratic societies. Detainees were confused about what rights they had and what they had to do to make an application to stay . . . In almost every case we know that these people [immigration detainees] have no knowledge of Australia's legal and political system, much less of HREOC's existence or powers or the existence of their own human rights.International law would insist that exactly the opposite be done. Rather than removing any possibilities for legal advice before a request is made, it should be a matter of course that all detainees are informed of their legal rights. Currently—and even more so under this bill—detained asylum seekers are treated worse before the law than an untried prisoner charged with a criminal offence in that they are not informed of their right to legal advice.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report recommends to the federal government that the Migration Act, the migration series and all local procedures of the detention service provider should be amended to require that, where a person is in immigration detention under the act, the person responsible for the detention shall advise him or her of the right to have access to legal assistance. The report says elsewhere that this access should not be dependent on the detainee initiating a request for assistance. One can only wonder, if governments continue to ignore the advice of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, what standing Australia will have in terms of having that commission if the advice is not heeded.The Scrutiny of Bills Committee had concerns about the 1996 bill. It continues to have these same concerns in 1999. It said:In the committee's view, it is contrary both to international standards (as expressed in article 26 of the ICCPR) and to the fundamental values of common law to entrench a discriminatory rule which effectively precludes a person from finding out what rights they might have under the law.Do we want to see more complaints against Australia's laws in the United Nations Human Rights Committee? I know some people do not care. Some people wear it as a badge of honour, and that is a shame. I think it is a crying shame for Australia's international reputation.The bill comes at a time when there are numerous and increasing complaints to the commission and the Ombudsman. I will give particular reference to Port Hedland. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has received 23 complaints from or on behalf of detainees since 1995. Of these, 70 per cent have been in relation to the issue of legal advice. This was regarded by the commission as a very high level of complaints, and of course it would be—70 per cent is enormous.The motivation for the bill is to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing Australia's legal system—therefore, creating a cost for the government—that is, to save money at any human cost. We were told back in 1996 when this legislation was first introduced that the protection of rights ought not to be governed by a cost benefit analysis. Ha! But the government has the mind-set that we can save money by not telling detainees about the legal system: `We can stop these illegal immigrants from being accepted as refugees. Simple—don't tell them about our refugee system. Too bad if it means some of them may be persecuted when they are sent home.' The government has described the situation as a loophole which allows boat people too much access to lawyers and the courts. How much access is too much access? In this case it seems any access may be too much access.If we are going to sign international instruments, we have to count the cost. Yes, access to legal advice and assistance can be costly, it can be a little inconvenient, and the determination of genuine cases may invoke lengthy and expensive processing. I think we have to accept this reality and responsibility, because efficiency and cost effectiveness are no substitute for legal justice, and they never were.Prompt return to their country of origin within several weeks becomes the consequence for detainees in many cases. The rapid turnaround may sound good from an efficiency point of view—that's the dollars again—and may even placate a largely hostile public when you think about some tabloid media when it comes to boat people, but at what expense has this efficiency and cost saving measure occurred?Let us look at the arrivals on the Cockatoo. This boat arrived in Australia in November 1994. In January 1995, arrangements were made to deport all 84 members of the group back to China. Legal assistance was received at the last minute, and 32 people from this boat were found to be refugees. Under our stringent rules in relation to refugees in Australia, if 32 people from that boat were found to be refugees, what would the implications have been if we had sent all 32 of those people back? Potentially, there were implications for their lives, their freedom or their families. It almost defies belief that we could be doing this on the basis of efficiency or some odd idea of justice. In other words, around 40 per cent of those people who have now been granted refugee status in Australia would have been deported. This comes from page 28 of a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report done in 1998 which is called For those who've come across the seas: detention of unauthorised arrivals.The draft protocol of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is a far more measured and targeted response to the department's concerns. Since 1996, the commission has been voluntarily operating according to the joint protocol which HREOC drafted as an alternative to this bill. This protocol offers a middle way. HREOC will not inform detainees of their legal rights but neither will they be categorically denied the ability to investigate complaints from a third party. The work of HREOC is, for the most part, not compromised and, as far as I understand it, the protocol has served its purpose well for the past 2½ years. So the irony is that the bill may not even be necessary.In the event of a detainee's human rights being contravened, that person has a right of access to a remedy, which, in Australia's case, is both the commission and the Ombudsman. To effect a remedy, these bodies need access to the detainee, whether by their own initiative or that of a third party. It is bad enough that the government is taking away the human rights of detainees, but it is doing this at the cost of the very bodies that are intended to monitor human rights. Where is the hope in this situation for detainees? I am quite horrified that HREOC could have been put in a situation where they had to trade off some of their responsibilities in order to be able to continue to conduct other parts of their important duties.It needs to be put on the record that even if this bill is passed, there is no legal prohibition on third parties informing detainees of their legal rights. There is no obligation on departmental officers to inform detainees, but similarly there is no prohibition on departmental officers, lawyers or even friends informing detainees. Up until late 1994, it seems that departmental officers were exercising their discretion to do so. The law therefore leaves to administrative discretion whether or not to advise, or allow third parties to advise, asylum seekers of their right to legal advice. I think the department would like us to forget this, but basically we are being discriminatory. Somebody is picking, off the top of their head, who gets their rights and who does not. I can just imagine the next step is to stop that from happening altogether. It is just mind-blowing.The assumption by the government is that only genuine refugees will request legal advice and, if legal advice is not requested, it is because the detainee does not want or need legal advice. Oh, come now! Any offer of information about legal advice amounts, therefore, in the government's eyes, to encouraging a detainee `to engage in unwarranted, lengthy or expensive processing'. The bottom line is: if people are not requesting legal advice, is it because they have no desire to or is it because they have no knowledge of how to obtain it? I put it to you that, if there is any chance at all that the second statement is true, then we have an obligation as a parliament to make sure that they obtain it. We cannot take a chance on the lives of people in these kinds of situations.I mentioned a sense of deja vu, that we have been through this before, and that one of the last duties of my former colleague ex-Senator Chamarette was to speak on a similar piece of legislation—or she certainly felt it was duty, because she stood up so strongly for human rights on so many occasions in this place. There is certainly nobody in this parliament who spoke more fervently or more often about the rights of refugees and refugee law. Senator Chamarette at the time said:The government and the opposition are supporting a government department's attempt to block the hole it perceives in our courts. That hole is the Federal Court's determination that the immigration department has a duty to deliver a sealed letter from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to some detainees in Port Hedland informing them of their rights.Later on she said:As I said, one reason this matter is urgent is that the parliament wants to do something that is presently illegal.Yes, the court found that there was the ability to do those things, and the government ran to try to block up the hole. That quote was from a motion in relation to the cut-off at that time.I think you would have to say that conditions are very traumatic for a lot of people. Perhaps what we are saying is that people who are asylum seekers—those people who escape from a country where they are being persecuted—have somehow to know, and maybe it is by ESP, that they have to be experts in the law, they have to be experts in Australian immigration law, and they have to know how to access their rights before they become refugees. (Time expired)10:22:006846Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The opposition's position on the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] has been put very well by Senator McKiernan. I want to say a few words, mainly about the second reading speech. The point I want to make is this: when legislation is brought before any chamber, arguments have to be put forward to explain why the change has been made. In this case, the law is being changed, but the material put forward in the second reading speech needs to be answered because there are inferences which, in my view, denigrate some quite outstanding people in this community.Other people have spoken well about the trust of this legislation and about where it takes us. Some have supported it and others have rejected it. I want to speak about the process by which matters are argued before this chamber. The second reading speech contains, in my view, inferences about people that need to be answered. There is not much time because things are under pressure on this last day of sittings, but I will go through the second reading speech. It starts off by saying:The purpose of this bill is to amend the Migration Act to clarify—it uses the word `clarify'—the rights of certain people who are in immigration detention.The fourth paragraph says:Section 256 of the Migration Act makes provision for access to legal advice by persons in immigration detention but only where the person in detention requests legal advice. This approach is clearly intended by the Migration Act and has been upheld by the courts in a number of cases.The inference you must take from that is that, prior to the decision given by Mr Justice Lindgren in the Teal case, there was no right for people to know about the law unless they asked for it. In the last full paragraph on the first page it says:Encouraged by the Federal Court's ruling, RACS—that is the Refugee Advice and Casework Services—then sought access to all the boat people who arrived around that period.The inferences from this are that the Federal Court—Justice Lindgren—did not apply the law and that there were laws that were quite specific which it did not take into account. That comes from the sentence I read earlier:This approach is clearly intended by the Migration Act and has been upheld by the courts in a number of cases.We are short of time, and I do not want to take too much time during the committee stage. I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary what those laws were which Mr Justice Lindgren ignored. I hope you are listening to this, Parliamentary Secretary.EU4O'CHEESenator O'Chee—She is indeed.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator O'Chee, you may be able to tell her what those cases were that Justice Lindgren ignored, because in my view he has not ignored any. He made the law; his law was quite clear. This bill does not clarify rights; it changes the law. The law as it was before this was that set out by Justice Lindgren, and he has not acted in any way other than as a very competent, a very honourable and a very learned judge with a great record in the law.The fifth paragraph of the second reading speech says:Against this background, in March 1996 the Refugee Advice and Casework Service in Victoria (now known as the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre) sought access to people who had arrived on a boat named the "Teal" to provide legal advice.On the next page it says:Certain interest groups have always argued that all unlawful non-citizens should, on arrival in Australia, immediately be offered access to legal advice, even where they do not request it.There has been a campaign—and I use the word advisedly—suggesting that the legal profession is trying to pervert the law and the immigration system for profit and that that is all that is on their mind. Again I ask the parliamentary secretary whether people like Matthew Beckman, whom she would know, or Ross McDougall are the sorts of people who look for large sums of money or whether they are people who are dedicated to trying to help people through the legal maze, whether it be pursuant to migration legislation or any other sort of legislation.These are people who live very frugally on very little money. I challenge the government to establish that the community legal centres and the refugee and immigration legal centres are places where money is made in big terms. They are people who are dedicated, whether you agree with them or not, to upholding the law and the rule of law in the community. They are, if you like, the Gandhis of the legal profession rather than anything else, and I think it is quite wrong—almost obscene—that a case should be put up that these sorts of people are profiting from this system, because they are not. That ought to be made quite clear. The second reading speech goes on:RACS complained to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, who then sought to have delivered to the captain, crew and passengers of the "Teal" a confidential letter, in reliance on the Commission's power under paragraph 20(6)(b) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act . The effect of that action would have been to ensure access to legal advice, despite the fact that none had been given.That is a direct attack on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and a direct attack on Chris Sidoti, the Human Rights Commissioner. Both attacks are most unjustified and both should be corrected here. It is true the commissioner was carrying out the dictates of a complaint made by a third party and not by people who were held in a detention centre—it is conceded that it was not in response to that. Nevertheless, he was carrying out a duty and he had a right, according to law, to do that.To put a sentence in a second reading speech that `the effect of this action would have been to ensure access to legal advice, despite the fact that none had been requested', implies that the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, tried to pervert the system. That is a most ungenerous suggestion, a wrong sugges tion and a suggestion I want to correct here now. The Human Rights Commission is an organisation of the highest standing and Chris Sidoti, as the Human Rights Commissioner, is a person of the highest standing. Not only I but also people across the chamber and from every walk of life in the community would say that. I cannot quite gather why a second reading speech should have been set out in this way.The department's refusal to deliver the lawful letter sent by the Human Rights Commission was in contradiction to the law, against the law. Why not come in with a second reading speech that says, `We have not got the power to refuse this letter but we want to change that. We want to switch it around. The Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commissioner were right. RACS is an honourable organisation. The judge is an honourable person. Nevertheless, we find, as a matter of administration, we cannot go on as we're going and we want to change it.'? Why not come in with that sort of argument rather than with an argument that denigrates a lot of people with high reputations in this community?To continue on that theme, this legislation not only stops the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Commissioner, who sent the letter—and you can understand them wanting to say, `This is person who sent the letter, we want to stop that and make sure he does not do it again'—but it also excludes the Ombudsman. It implies that in some way the Ombudsman is going to be irresponsible—this is Mr Ron McLeod who has never even attempted to write a letter to any detainees. Why is he there and why should he be excluded when he has never done a thing? The inference there is that somehow, unless he is restrained, he is going to act irresponsibly.So the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Commissioner and the Ombudsman are going to be irresponsible. There is no evidence to justify that at all. Why not, as I say, simply put the case as it should be put—that is, if this goes on, the government will find it difficult to administer the law and will therefore need to change it? Why not put it that way? That is an argument that can be comprehended but, no, the government must go into this exercise in denigration.The first full paragraph of the second page of the second reading speech says that certain interest groups have always argued that unlawful non-citizens should, on arrival in Australia, be offered legal advice. The inference there is that `certain interest groups' are interested financially, and I think there are those interest groups. But the interest groups here, as I said before—whether it be RACS or some other community legal centre, or whether it be Matthew Beckman or Ross McDougall or some other person—have an interest, whether you agree with it or not, in seeing justice done and the law carried out. Why should they be condemned for that? I think that ought to be corrected and I hope it is. The second paragraph goes on:This Bill ensures that Parliament's intention in relation to the management of unauthorised arrivals in immigration detention, as reflected by section 256 of the Migration Act, cannot be subverted through the use of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 or the Ombudsman Act 1976 .Why use a word like `subverted'? If the parliamentary secretary is going to reply to this, I would like to know why that word was used, why it could be said that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Human Rights Commissioner, who a court has said acted correctly, can be described as subverting section 256 of the Migration Act. I do not know why that was said. I am at a loss to understand why it is necessary to denigrate good people.On the amendments, the Telecommunications (Interception) Act is going to be extended further by adding immigration offences to the list of offences in respect of which telephone lines can be tapped. Telephone tapping has become the order of the day. I refer the parliamentary secretary to section 7 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act which says:A person shall not:(a) intercept. . . . . . . . .. . .. a communication passing over a telecommunication system. The general philosophy is that the integrity of people's phones should be preserved; they should not be tapped. This is yet another exception. I understand the basis on which it is put. I just ask the parliamentary secretary, who has always been avid—and I used that word advisedly—in these issues of civil rights, in these issues of protecting people's privacy, how far the central part of the Telecommunications Interception Act is going to be more and more compromised. I can understand what she will say—that these are serious offences, which they are, and it is necessary for this to happen. Nevertheless, it is the legislative creep which she herself used to quite properly and I thought quite courageously criticise.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Chee) adjourned.Miscellaneous68496849684910:40:006849Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I present the supplementary estimates report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2000.Ordered that the report be printed.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I move:That the recommendation contained in the committee's report, to refer issues raised in the report to the Procedure Committee, be adopted.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills6849r810Billsr807Billsr8096849Debate resumed from 28 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.10:41:006849Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, introduced the budget on 11 May but, as everybody knew at the time, it was not the real budget. As we said at the time, it was based on three shaky assumptions: the full sale of Telstra; the passing of the GST without any change to the original ANTS package; and the maintenance of high levels of consumption. Since then, we have seen the chances of the full sale of Telstra going through, either before or after 1 July, disappear. The best the government have been able to achieve is 49 per cent, not the 100 per cent. The government and the Democrats have raided the surplus by another $3 billion. Opinion polling shows that people strongly oppose the GST, and there is every likelihood that they will continue to do so.Within three days of the budget being brought down it was discredited by Senator Brian Harradine, who announced on Friday 14 May that he could not support the GST. The Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, did not expect this from Senator Harradine. He expected—and it is reflected in the budget—that the GST would be passed without any further compensation. The fact is that the reaction by Senator Harradine blew the budget out of the water. Senator Harradine rejected the GST on the grounds that it was unfair, discriminates against low income earners and is not capable of being reformed. Senator Harradine said that the GST is by its nature so regressive it cannot ever be made fair.When Treasury appeared before the Senate inquiry they confirmed that the compensation package offered by the Prime Minister to pensioners during the election campaign was `nonadditive'. What Treasury said at the Senate estimates was that the 1.5 per cent compensation package would rise in line with CPI movements at about three-quarters per cent per year while the pension would move in line with increases in average weekly earnings for males at about four per cent per annum. The effect would be that the 1.5 per cent promise would run out after three years. Pensions would continue to rise in line with 25 per cent of average weekly earnings but the compensation package would have been absorbed within the pension and cease to exist. These were the assumptions that underpinned this year's budget. This meant that pensioners would be no better off than before the GST, despite the promises that they would be compensated.The validity of this concession by Treasury is confirmed by the decision of the Prime Minister to increase the pension to 26 per cent of average male weekly earnings. The Prime Minister knows that the compensation to pensioners should have been at least 26½ per cent of average male weekly earnings. The offer of 26 per cent was subsequently withdrawn in the negotiations with the Democrats. Senator Harradine sat through more than four months of deliberation by the Senate committee of inquiry into the GST and found that the government position was indefensible. The government compounded the inequity of the tax arrangements by agreeing to a secret amendment to the bill relating to the GST on high rollers and for our casinos. By the time of the Harradine announcement, the budget was in disarray, but worse was to come.On 28 May, the government entered into a deal with the Democrats which is not only the worst of all possible results but it is the result which was neither supported or anticipated by the Treasurer nor reflected in his budget. The Howard-Democrat deal fails all the economic and social tests for tax reform. Tax reform should aid economic growth and employment and meet the tests of efficiency, equity and simplicity. On all of these criteria, the Howard-Democrat deal has failed. The result is that consumers, low income Australians and small businesses will bear the brunt of the new tax system.The deal was done on Friday 28 May between Howard and the Democrats and it is a dog's breakfast of a deal. The Premier of Victoria, Mr Jeff Kennett, the number one ticket holder in the GST debate, stated when he wrote to ALP senators on 3 June 1999:. . . the new tax package agreed to with the Democrats will impose substantial compliance administration costs on small business. Many small businesses which sell food . . . will find that they are unable to afford the necessary hardware and software to comply with the delineation required by the omission of `basic food' from the GST net.Jeff Kennett predicted small businesses would close down because of this deal. He continued:Moreover, it is almost impossible for many of these businesses to have systems in place to deal with the `basic food' definitions by July next year, when the GST is schedule to be introduced.This new package which is now going to be reflected in the budget delivers the lion's share of the tax cuts to the top 20 per cent of income earners. The financial institutions duty will last for another six months. The banking administration duty will last until at least 2005. Compliance costs will increase for small businesses and over one million small businesses will become tax collectors for the first time. They are going ahead with abolishing the share transaction tax as predicted. On the one hand, if you are a pensioner with an account at the Commonwealth Bank, you are still going to pay all of those regressive indirect taxes which the government talked about, but if you trade shares, the share fee is going straight away. You get to stick with the five years of FIDs and BADs but if you trade shares you get that tax free move straight away—another example of the inequities of the revised package.Senator Harradine rejected a five per cent increase linked to wages and other measures worth $1.5 to $2 billion. The Democrats have settled for a four per cent pension increase. Education is not GST free. The GST will still apply to books, uniforms, private tuition, some school excursions and sports equipment. Under the new arrangement with the Democrats we will all be worse off. Senator Brian Harradine has demonstrated that the GST is inequitable and cannot be fixed.The Democrats' proposal does not change the fact that the GST is inequitable for low income earners and will remain so even if food is exempt. With the new compensation package being offered by the Prime Minister, first to Senator Harradine and now to the Democrats, it is clear that the 1999 budget was based on false assumptions—it is based on the assumption of the full implementation of the ANTS package with no extra compensation. There is a new compensation package, which renders the budget redundant. It was pronounced dead on 28 May, barely two weeks after it was given birth on 11 May.The 1999 budget was also based on the assumption of the 100 per cent sale of Telstra, despite the fact that the coalition promised it would not sell more than 49 per cent of Telstra without an independent inquiry. As we have seen already, the government passed a bill last week which only delivers 49 per cent. Many of the government's spending initiatives, especially the regional spending initiatives, rely on funding from 100 per cent sale of Telstra. The 1999 budget is based on the assumption that consumer spending will hold up. This will and cannot occur, and I will talk about this later.Opinion polling shows that people are strongly opposed to the new package. In a recent Herald Sun poll, 230 people phoned in in supported the GST deal. By coincidence, in a poll the next day 640 people phoned in in support of the Ku Klux Klan. So three times as many people were prepared to say they supported the Ku Klux Klan than those who supported the GST deal.No-one believes the compensation will last, no-one believes the rate will not go up and no-one believes the food exemption will last. We have the Premier of Victoria campaigning and saying, `To fix the dog's breakfast, what we need is the GST on food.' That is Jeff Kennett, the number one ticket holder. He dragged the Prime Minister and the Treasurer screaming and kicking into the GST debate in the first place and his is still committed to putting a GST on food. The government was already raiding the surplus by $5 to $7.5 billion per annum to buy a GST before the new package. The raid on the surplus amounted to some $17 billion over three years.The deal with the Democrats, as I have already said, reduces this by a further $3 billion. And what is this for? Is it to stimulate innovation? No. It is not to boost our intellectual capital. It is not to invest in an information economy. It is not to build regional infrastructure. It was loosened to buy a new unfair tax. The government has claimed consistently that the tax system is `broke', but without the GST we would have a surplus of $12 billion in 2000-01, $10 billion the next year and $19 billion the year after that. As Alan Kohler said recently:The budget papers .. . show surpluses stretching forward as far as the eye can see.No erosion of the tax base is projected in the budget. The GST package is fundamentally anti-family. Respected academic Professor Peter McDonald has pointed out the absurdity of the government's assumption that having a child will cost families only an additional 30 cents per week in GST. It took a Senate inquiry to prove that this contention is false and that the GST is unfair.During the last election, what did the Prime Minister claim about it? He said there would be no losers, no job losses, that there was adequate compensation, that a 1.9 per cent inflation impact was expected and that there will be no increase in the city-country petrol price differential. All of it was refuted in evidence to the Senate committees. The Prime Minister did forget to mention during the election campaign that the pensioner compensation would erode to zero in the ANTS package, that renters living in hostels and caravan parks would face GST on their rent, that non-prescription medicines would be included in the GST, that the cost of educating our children would rise and that charities will have to wind back their services.Fortunately, some of those issues were taken up by the Democrats in their total sell-out and some of those issues were addressed subsequently, but all of those things were there as part of the budget projections and the Prime Minister during the election campaign maintained the fictions that he continues to try to maintain even as recently as last night and this morning. It has also become clear that consumption spending is unlikely to remain at the current high levels. Page 225 of Budget Paper No. 1, says:Some uncertainty remains around the extent to which the recent strength in household consumption expenditure will be sustained once the effects of recent increases in household wealth have run their course. A related area of uncertainty is the apparent downward trend in the household saving ratio and rising household debt. If households move to stabilise or increase their saving rates from recent levels and to rein in the growth in household debt, household consumption expenditure could be weaker than forecast.That is Treasury speak. I grew up in Canberra, so I have become used to dealing with Treasury and a bit of Treasury speak over the years. That is a red flashing warning light about the level of consumption—that the economy is being driven by consumption. The economy is living off bankcards and consumer debt is up. Credit growth has been running at around 11.5 per cent on an annual basis while non-household credit grew 15.3 per cent in the 12 months to March 1999. The budget papers reveal that in 1997-98 the household savings rate was three per cent. This is estimated to have fallen to 1.25 per cent in 1998-99 and is forecast to fall to one per cent in 1999-2000.On Tuesday, 18 May, and repeated and reinforced since that date, Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Bank in the US announced that the bank was preparing to increase interest rates. This was a consequence of inflation expectations jumping sharply in April. Any rise in interest rates would have negative implications for Wall Street and the Australian market. An Australian Bureau of Statistics report released on Monday, 28 June, showed that Australian household debt had grown by $10.8 billion in the March quarter of this year, mainly in new loans. Each Australian owed, on average, $20,556 in the March quarter, an increase of more than $5,000 from three years ago.The Institute of Chartered Accountants spokesman, Mr Peter Macks, was reported in the Courier Mail on 29 June as saying that when household savings fall and there are warnings of interest rate rises people should reduce their level of debt. How can the Treasurer possibly maintain that consumption levels are going to continue to rise when he knows that if people do not voluntarily reduce their level of debt and consumption, the Reserve Bank will have to increase interest rates? Turning to the current account in Australia today, as Terry McCrann said on 1 June, Australia ran up a record trade deficit of $4.5 billion in the March quarter. In April, Australia posted its biggest ever trade deficit of $1.9 billion.The current account deficit will soon pass six per cent of GDP, yet the government has taken no action in the budget to correct the situation. The current account deficit is the most serious issue facing the country while Treasury officials are consumed by the issue of cooked chickens. The growing trade deficit increases the likelihood of an interest rate rise notwithstanding the assurances of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr McFarlane, that it may be possible to avoid an interest rate increase this year. The government appears to be saying that if the federal budget is in surplus, its responsibilities to the trade deficit are nil. This is despite the fact that in 1996 the Treasurer said that the trade deficit was the biggest issue facing the country and he would fix it. The Treasurer paraded a debt truck around the country in the 1996 election showing Australia $190 billion in hock to foreigners. What is the figure today? Is it lower? No. It is $240 billion. Is that his idea of fixing the problem?According to Budget Paper No. 1, page 225:There continues to be great uncertainty surrounding the international economic outlook and with that the outlook for Australia's export industries and the terms of trade.The government is fudging the figures on the current account deficit. It is seeking to make light of the problem, if not ignore it completely. The Treasurer simply does not understand that the key to the current account is improving our savings effort, gaining continuous improvement in productivity arising from economic reforms and increasing investment. We said at the last election that this government does not have a plan for this country, it just has a plan for a new tax. Where is the plan for the unemployed? The government in the budget papers appears happy with attempting to freeze unemployment at 7.5 per cent. What happened to the five per cent target that the Treasurer promised earlier this year? Where has that gone in the budget? There is no mention of the five per cent target. It is just steady as she goes— unemployment can stay at 7.5 per cent; it does not matter.Business investment has slumped to a 15year low. Business investment is forecast to be negative. Do you see the Prime Minister going on the telly to say, `The GST is great—it is going to fix the economy—but by the way business investment is negative'? According to the latest capital expenditure intentions provided by the Bureau of Statistics, the best case scenario suggests that investment next financial year will be 10 per cent lower than for 1998-99. The budget proves that we do not need a GST. It is also relevant to note that over these two years wholesale sales tax will grow faster than GDP is estimated to grow. This is from a system that the Treasurer claims was broken. Labor supports tax reform. The significant tax reform of the eighties and nineties introduced by Labor underpins the budget. In the period 1990 to 1995, PAYE receipts rose by $7 billion to $48 billion, or 16 per cent, because of the substantial tax cuts as part of the One Nation package.This was tax reform, but without a GST. Similarly, Labor today acknowledges the need for further tax reform, but again tax reform without a GST. This budget confirmed that it could be done. Last year's budget papers stated:The projected surpluses are not predicated on higher growth in revenues. Revenues as a share of GDP are projected to remain relatively stable through the forward estimates period and are little different from their 1995-96 levels of around 25% of GDP.This year's budget demonstrated that last year's projections were correct; the current tax system was delivering enough revenue in a fair manner to meet the nation's needs; there was room for significant fair tax reductions for low and middle income families; and Australia did not need a GST. The results over the last decade speak for themselves. We do not need an unfair, job destroying change to our tax system. What did the Australian Industry Group say about the budget in those few days after it came down? They said:In relation to business the R&D industry remains frustrated at the lack of clarification of the future of the R&D tax concession. On latest figures Australia ranks 16th in the OECD in terms of business R&D spend and expenditure is falling not rising. We need to address this. Restoring the Tax Concession to 150%, and, in fact, increasing it, is way overdue.That is what the Australian Industry Group said. Even after adding in all the government's research initiatives in this budget, government spending on science and innovation in 1999-2000 is still below that spent in Labor's last year. More disturbing, government investment in science and innovation as a proportion of GDP has declined from 0.78 per cent in 1995-96 to around 0.63 per cent in 1999-2000—one of the lowest figures ever recorded since they started keeping records. This is projected to fall further in subsequent years.According to my colleague the shadow minister for industry and technology, Bob McMullan, business expenditure on research and development has decreased from $4,300 million in 1995-96 to $3,700 million in 1998-99. This decline is a direct result of the Howard government's 1996 decision to cut the research and development tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. Our capacity to restore the R&D concessions and grants to science is threatened if a GST is introduced. Australia cannot afford the GST. The numbers do not add up.If the government had any idea what to do, it would have had a budget that introduced capital gains relief for new venture capital, increased funding for education to ensure all members of our community improve their ability to gain employment, improved the infrastructure in regional Australia—especially for rail—and restored R&D tax breaks to their 1996 levels. Moreover, if there is a deterioration in the economy over the next few years, the budget will be in deficit on top of the worst trade figures that we have seen.The budget introduced on 11 May has constrained the government because of the cost of introducing the GST and the tax cuts for those least in need. In 1995, the now Treasurer said that the greatest problem facing this country was the trade deficit. It has got worse and continues to do so, and the government does not care. We needed a budget that secured the surplus, returned the bracket creep to taxpayers, addressed business tax reform and made a stronger commitment to education and training. (Time expired)11:02:006854MacGibbon, Sen DavidSenator MacGIBBONYH4QLDLP10—This group of bills formally states where the government proposes to spend money throughout the next 12 months—money that has been raised from the Australian community. Therefore, it is the taxpayers' money—not an act of benevolence by a benign, generous or caring government. A civilised society must have two essential attributes: it must have a rule of law which codifies its behaviour; it also must have trust within the community. Trust is particularly important in the financial area.The collection of money through taxes and other means, while backed up by the force of law, is in the main a voluntary activity in Australia, although we have to recognise that, particularly with respect to the collection of taxes, it might be an obligation that is somewhat grudgingly undertaken. Nevertheless, in the main, it is a voluntary activity. In return for that, the community trusts the government to spend the money so raised—if not wisely, at least in an open way—and be publicly accountable for those expenditures. The appropriation bills that come before the parliament and the Senate estimates committees—which have the power to investigate to the very last cent the expenditure proposed by the government, if they had the time to do so—form a very essential part in this accountability process.On the subject of money, I wish to discuss the matter of charitable trusts. As part of my interest in charitable organisations and the role of charity in Australia, I have been pursuing justice in relation to the legislation covering charitable trusts for more than two years now, and I want to raise the matter in public. There are many types of trusts. For the purpose of this debate, I exclude every type of trust except charitable trusts.Charitable trusts are those trusts set up by a benefactor to distribute benefits in perpetuity to deserving individuals or groups. Charitable trusts are a legal entity. Someone contributes a sum of money and decrees that the income from that sum of money be distributed to a designated worthy cause. The trust is administered by trustees who carry out the wishes of the donor and manage the investment of the sum of money in a prudent manner.Since charitable trusts are set up in perpetuity, usually the family or friends of the donor do not survive long enough to manage the trusts in the long haul and the administration of those trusts is carried out by professional commercial companies which specialise in this work. Only companies of high repute were engaged in this task because of the responsibilities they have. Furthermore, those companies that were professional trustee companies respected the generosity of the benefactor and his or her wish to support a charitable cause and charged appropriate fees—covering their outlays and making a moderate profit. They never got into the field to exploit the trust.Legislation covering the costs of charitable trusts is in the province of the state governments. Historically, the great majority of charitable trusts are based in Victoria and, therefore, are covered by legislation of the Victorian parliament. The next largest group is in New South Wales. The current charges provided for under legislation are about 5¼ per cent of the income of the trust in New South Wales and six per cent in Victoria. That scale of charges represents broadly the level of expenditure, going back at least 50 years, required to operate a trust.Sadly, in the last decade we have seen a very marked change in attitude in the management of trustee companies such as Perpetual Trustees and Permanent Trustees. From a position where they sought moderate returns for the work they did, they now seek to maximise their returns. This change is not driven by a need to cover increased costs. The present scale of charges of between five and six per cent for the administration returns a very handsome profit for the administration of the trusts, particularly the large trusts, because there is not that much work involved.It is true that, for small trusts—and I am talking about trusts below $500,000—the administrative costs might well break even with the five or six per cent figure and, for smaller sums of money, the administrative costs could exceed the five or six per cent figure. But it has to be pointed out that those small trusts are very much in the minority and, in the overall position, the present trustee companies do very well.The trustee companies in Australia form part of an association known as the Trustee Corporation Association. They devised a strategy to conceal their objective of extracting more in management fees and they induced both the Victorian and the New South Wales governments to change their legislation. They did this covertly and without public scrutiny. What they did was very simple and very deceiving. They proposed that there be a change from five or six per cent of the income earned by the trusts to a figure of one per cent of capital value. The apparent generosity of moving from a figure of five or six per cent to a figure of one per cent masks a very great change in the returns to the companies. In fact, there is a more than fourfold increase in the profits coming from this.The mathematics of it are very simple. Over the long haul a trust will earn on average five per cent of its capital income. For the sake of argument, let us assume that a trust earns $5 million per annum. If it is showing five per cent in the long haul there is a capital sum of $100 million involved. A management fee of five per cent of income on an income of $5 million is $250,000—a figure which more than adequately covers the cost of administration. However, if you move to a one per cent of capital value, that $250,000 becomes $1 million just with the stroke of a pen. There is a huge difference. In fact the five per cent of income, which was the former charge, becomes 20 per cent of income. The only way that money can be paid is by reducing the benefit to the recipients.In a very furtive, underhand way the Trustee Corporation Association of Australia induced both the Victorian and the New South Wales state governments to pass the appropriate legislation. That legislation was passed in New South Wales, and when the government was challenged about it, it passed an amending bill excluding charitable trusts in 1997. Thanks to the intervention of the Trustee Corporation Association, that bill has never been given royal assent. It has never been proclaimed into law, so the original act covering it stands. The management of the trustee companies are motivated by pure greed. They do not see their role, as they did in former years, as providing a public service while covering their outlays and making a moderate profit. They are in there purely to maximise the profit for their companies and to build their stock prices up.I will refer to the performance of Perpetual Trustees on the stock market. On 31 December 1995 the shares of Perpetual Trustees were selling for $4.60. At the end of 1997 they were selling for $10.70. On 31 May this year they were selling for $23.50. Certainly the stock market has had a very good run, but the performance of Perpetual Trustees far outstrips the average movement in the market. While the public are quite rightly outraged at the charges and the performance of the four major Australian banks, the stock prices of the banks have not moved as much as the price of Perpetual Trustees' shares has.I am a marketeer; I have no objection to companies making a profit. That is what business is all about. But what we are looking at here is a gross abuse of power. Men and women set up these trusts in the past to help those less fortunate than themselves in society. The terms under which they set up their trusts are now enshrined in a legal form. The benefactors in most cases are dead; they have no flexibility at all. They cannot rewrite the terms of their trust. They cannot go on the market and go for competitive bids with other trustee companies. They are simply denied the opportunity to reorder their affairs. When they set their trusts up they believed that, in light of what had been legislated in the past, they could expect a management fee of about five per cent, which meant that 95 per cent of the profit of their trusts would go to people who were deserving. They now face a fourfold increase in the management fee, which means a dramatic decline in the funds dispersed. It should be noted that there is no reason why those charges cannot be increased further in the years ahead by the same stratagem, because greed feeds on greed.In light of the active interest by the Prime Minister in charitable institutions in Australia, the Federal Attorney-General should counsel his state counterparts to rescind this legislation where it covers charitable trusts, except those trusts for which it can be clearly shown that their management costs are unprofitable at a five or six per cent figure. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am talking about charitable trusts. All the other trusts that exist in Australia are run by people who are alive and engaged in business and who have the opportunity to put alternative arrangements in place. The point about the charitable trusts is that the founders of those trusts have no flexibility at all.In the opening passage of my speech I talked about the essential need for trust in, and accountability of, government in the expenditure of public funds. How those funds are spent is not the issue. We have all got different ideas about how government should spend money, and the community has the opportunity through regular elections—and this is one advantage of the three-year electoral cycle—to change the government if it does not approve of the way the government of the day is spending money. The important issue, though, is that the government be quite open as to where the money is spent. In a general sense there are no criticisms that can be levelled at Australian federal governments of any persuasion with respect to accountability. The accountability is very good and the processes are quite transparent, except in relation to one area which has been a concern of mine over a number of years. It relates to the security and intelligence agencies in this country.We are presented with a one-line entry for each of the five intelligence agencies that exist in this country. Traditionally, no minister will ever take any question at a Senate estimates hearing as to how that expenditure takes place. That is fair enough. You cannot divulge the operations of the security and intelligence gathering organisations in this country. But the issue goes further than that. The parliament accepts responsibility for those agencies. When we pass these appropriation bills, we will approve a sum in aggregate for the five agencies in excess of $445 million for the next 12 months. No-one in this chamber can stand up and say to the public, `We can assure you that that money has been properly and effectively spent.' That matter demands to be addressed.It cannot be addressed in a public forum. We are talking here about organisations which are and which must remain secret in their operation. That means that any parliamentary oversight of them similarly must be by people who maintain secrecy about their activities. It does mean that the whole of the parliament cannot know what goes on, but it is possible for the parliament to delegate that authority to senior, responsible senators and members of integrity to do it on their behalf.Different countries have different approaches to the way they go about this. The American congress works on the basis that congress must know and, while the whole of the congress does not know what is going on in their agencies, certainly the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is briefed on a daily basis, down to the names of the personnel involved, on operations. I personally do not think it is necessary from the point of view of being able to be fully accountable, but different countries have different ways. The important thing for Australia is that we simply have no parliamentary oversight of our intelligence bodies at all. We vest that oversight in the ministers, but the ministers responsible—the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General—have the busiest portfolios in the parliament. With the best will in the world, they do not have the time to effectively oversee the operations of those bodies, even though they accept responsibility for them.We have a parliamentary committee, the Joint Standing Committee on ASIO, and it is absolutely futile. Part VA of the act, which was amended in 1987, provides that the parliamentary committee cannot look at anything relating to foreign nationals or any matters that relate to foreign intelligence. It cannot look at any organisational matter of the organisation and it cannot look at complaints about the organisation. Effectively, it is powerless. In 1995, when we had a crisis, we had the Samuels inquiry into the operations of ASIS. The Labor government of the day accepted that there should be a joint committee set up for oversight of both ASIO and ASIS, and five years later nothing has happened. We effectively have no oversight at all, and in that we stand out, alone, from all other democracies. However inefficient their processes might be, other countries do far more in the way of oversight than we do. My belief is that the parliamentary process must develop a system of accountability for that.The legality of the organisations is covered by the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence. Basically what the Inspector-General does is see that these organisations conform to Australian law, and there does not seem to be much doubt that that does occur all the time. But it would be good to have a parliamentary committee overseeing them to provide an independent view of the operations of these organisations with respect to their conformation to the law. There are ways that this can be done. The method I propose is that a committee be set up of parliamentarians—not a parliamentary committee, because I think we need an assurance of the integrity of the people on that committee. My proposal would be that a small committee of five senior senators and members, selected by the Prime Minister of the day in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, be appointed to operate as an oversight committee. The committee should not be restricted to the field operators, ASIO and ASIS. There is quite a reaction in the bureaucracy against involving the other organisations, the analytical organisations like RNA, DIO and DSD, in any parliamentary oversight. That is absolutely illogical. Clearly parliamentary oversight would be greater on the field operators, where lives are at stake and where the opportunities to breach the law are greater. Bodies like ASIO and ASIS are the two in that category. But logically there should be oversight of all organisations.The British parliament have resolved this issue. It is interesting that the British, right up to Mrs Thatcher's time, strenuously denied the existence of any intelligence agencies, despite all the stories over the years from James Fleming and going back to John Buchan and The 39 Steps. Through the Thatcher years there was the celebrated argument within the bureaucracy in Whitehall which was known as the debate on avowal—whether they avowed the existence of these agencies. In the end the avowalists won, and it is a matter of history that Stella Rimington, the head of one of the organisations, became a figure of great public exposure in Britain, always appearing on television and the rest of it. The British government now avow the existence of their intelligence agencies.Most importantly, they set up a committee of senior parliamentarians and charged them with the responsibility of looking at the expenditure, administration and policy of all their agencies. Those words are very good because they exclude from the parliamentary committee involvement in operational details and thereby maintain the security of the organisation. I think that is very important. But it allows the parliament, through a small group, to have oversight of the operations of those agencies and thereby provide an assurance for the public that they are being properly and effectively run.That is the recommendation I leave with this parliament: that we do need to pick up on the accountability of our intelligence agencies. I believe it can be done. It must be done in a way that is very different from looking at the oversight of the health department, the defence department, welfare or anything like that. But the public do demand accountability from us and in turn we must demand accountability from the Public Service. The days are long gone in Australia when the intelligence agencies were seen as an instrument of persecution of one section of the community or another. The community now do accept the need for timely, relevant and accurate intelligence, and they want the assurance that the process by which that is derived is properly done. 11:21:006857O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam Acting Deputy President, I am advised that this is your last scheduled stint in the chair. Can I say on behalf of my colleagues that we all value the work you have done not only in this capacity but also in all capacities in your parliamentary career. I seek to put those remarks on the record.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Thank you.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam Acting Deputy President, if I can be disorderly and associate myself with those remarks, I will do so.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you for being disorderly.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I think we can excuse that latitude in this case, Madam Acting Deputy President. In terms of my contribution to this debate, in recent conversation about the performance of members of the Howard ministry, it was suggested that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, seemed to be doing a reasonable job. The response from a long-time Liberal Party watcher was swift. He said that the reason Alexander Downer seemed to be doing a reasonable job was simple: everyone thought he was going to be an absolute disaster but he has turned out to be barely competent.The same cannot be said for the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Everyone thought that Senator Ian Macdonald was going to be an absolute disaster—and he is. The evidence of his failure is to be found in hundreds of pages of the Hansard of estimates committees. As you are aware, the estimates committee is a forum that enables senior bureaucrats to assess the ability of less senior bureaucrats. If a committee is doing its job properly, it will effectively scrutinise the details of each program in a portfolio and the abilities of the public servants who administer those programs. The estimates process also provides a very useful forum for assessing the quality of various ministers. This is very much the case when the minister at the table has direct responsibility for the programs being scrutinised. In those circumstances, ministers have an opportunity to show their grasp of their portfolio. They also have a chance to explain the policy merit of programs they administer.My view of Senator Ian Macdonald was confirmed by his performance in the February estimates hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. I asked him for some general information about the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and the results of the review undertaken by a former Liberal minister, Mr Peter Nixon. I asked what recommendations the government had accepted and what would therefore receive funding in the upcoming budget. The minister said that he was directly responsible for administering the scheme, but he could not answer the question—he said that he would have to take it on notice. He said that he had not yet briefed himself on the key recommendations.The government won the last election on 3 October 1998 and I was putting these questions to Senator Ian Macdonald on 8 February 1999. He had no idea, even in the most general terms, about a key regional program for which he had direct responsibility. Even though he had a number of senior departmental officers at the table with him, he was still unable to respond to the most basic questions. And things did not improve much in the next round of hearings. I asked Senator Ian Macdonald about the proposal that Bass Strait be made part of the national highway system. I was confident that he knew the details of this matter as he had met with the committee promoting this proposal only a month before and had been quoted extensively in the press on it.Senator Ian Macdonald said that he had requested a submission from the committee but had not received one. In fact, his department had received the material but it had not yet been referred to him. Even though he had asked for a submission from this group and the submission was subsequently provided, and even though he was yet to see the submission or consider advice from his department about its merits or otherwise, he ruled out the proposal. He did not bother to read the submission. He did not seek advice. He just killed it off.The estimates hearings considering the details of the 1999-2000 budget took place between 31 May and 3 June. These hearings presented a chance for Senator Ian Macdonald to recover some much needed lost ground. They offered him an opportunity to stamp his authority on local government and regional development and to gain some important breathing space from keen, if somewhat untalented, backbenchers who were already eyeing off his spot. He failed. The disturbing indicators of his lack of ability and application to the task, which were seen in the hearings in February and early May, were well and truly confirmed.At the hearings on 31 May, I asked Senator Ian Macdonald some questions about running costs. He said that he could not tell the committee how some $79 million might be spent in the upcoming financial year. I wanted to know how this sum of money might be allocated. He could not answer this question. Senator Mackay then asked the minister if he could give the committee ballpark figures on how this money might be spent by the various divisions—a question seeking the most general information, and information which was contained in earlier budget papers but which did not appear in those relating to the 1999-2000 budget.An officer at the table, Mr Martin, said that the department had looked at the matter but deferred to the minister and the chair—and that is at page 36 of the Hansard. Senator Mackay asked:I am asking what the ball-park figure is for each of the divisions in your department for this budget which we are debating now, and you are refusing to give me that information. Is that correct?Senator Ian Macdonald said that the divisions were operating `under sufficient money to achieve what the government wants them to achieve'. Senator Mackay then asked what the tentative budget was for each of the divisions of the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The minister said, `We have not done it. We do not have them.' Senator Mackay asked, `So you do not know?' and the minister replied, `No.'However, a short time later in the same hearings, Senator Carr asked the minister about the administration of the Norfolk Island Act. Specifically, he asked what resources had been allocated to provide advice on Green wich University. Senator Ian Macdonald said that he did not think that any money had been allocated for that purpose. Senator Carr then asked, `You have allocated no officers' time?' and Senator Ian Macdonald replied, `I would not imagine so, no.' Senator Ian Macdonald is directly responsible for the administration of the Norfolk Island Act 1979. On page 54 of the portfolio budget statement for 1999-2000, under the heading `Activity', it states `Administration of the Norfolk Island Act 1979'.Under the performance indicators for the administration of the act—on the same page—it states that the quality measure is the accurate, appropriate and comprehensive advice to the minister's satisfaction. The latest annual report of the Department of Transport and Regional Services says that the role of the department is to provide advice to the minister—Senator Ian Macdonald—on developing, implementing and evaluating Commonwealth policies and programs for Norfolk Island. That is at page 134. Clearly, funding is allocated to this issue in the 1999-2000 budget. If it is not, the performance indicators in the budget statements will not be met and the latest annual report is misleading. So Senator Ian Macdonald misled the committee on this point. Frankly, his error was through incompetence; it was not deliberate.Senator Carr then asked the following question in relation to the estimates process:Do you think that questions that relate to the expenditure of money for running costs would be appropriate?Senator Ian Macdonald replied:For the running costs of the department, yes.Senator Ian Macdonald then proceeded to detail the running costs associated with the administration of matters relating to Norfolk Island. He said the cost was around $440,000. One minute there was no money for advice on Norfolk Island, the next minute there was $440,000. One minute the minister could not give the most general information about the allocation of running costs by division for the Department of Transport and Regional Services, the next minute we got a breakdown of the running costs for a group of five officers who manage the Norfolk Island desk.In relation to the issue of the new arrangements for the diesel fuel rebate, which differentiate between the city and the bush, I asked the minister how we defined regional and non-regional. Senator Ian Macdonald had in fact put out a media release on this very matter some days earlier. He told the committee he wrote it himself in his office at midnight on the previous Friday. I wanted to know what local governments would fall within the definition of regional and what local governments would be outside it. He said he was not aware that such information was available.Senator Ian Macdonald said it was a matter for Treasury and, anyway, it was not relevant to the 1999-2000 budget. But of course his own portfolio budget statement again contradicted him. The budget statement for 1999-2000, on page 53, under the `Activity' heading, says:. . . assistance in relation to necessary implementation costs incurred in complying with the requirements of the GST legislation.That statement seemed very clear to everyone except Senator Ian Macdonald. I did pursue the matter further and was told by Senator Ian Macdonald that he did not know whether or not he was actually asked for that advice. He said he did not know whether or not any work had been done on that matter. Prompted by his officials, he then said advice was provided by his department on this matter. Clearly that was the first he had heard of it. Senator Ian MacDonald then tried to explain his embarrassment away. He said he would not necessarily be told if his department was providing advice to another department. Remember, we are talking about key policy advice here.9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This is your last time in the chair in this chamber and I think that should be brought to the attention of the Senate. On behalf of the government, I thank you for the role that you have carried out in that capacity.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Thank you, Minister.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I was talking about Senator Ian Macdonald explaining his embarrassment away and the fact that he said he would not necessarily be told if his department was providing advice to another department. He then agreed that it would be okay for Mr Anderson to ask officers about a local government issue and to get that advice without any reference to him.Frankly, if Senator Ian Macdonald knew what was going on in his office, he would find that he is supplied with a copy of all briefings for Mr Anderson that are directly in his area of responsibility. He is also provided with copies of briefs in areas that are directly a matter for Mr Anderson but have some relevance to his ministry. So he should keep a better eye on his in-tray. I suppose he might say that that is not the case, but if he is not being provided with copies of this material as a matter of course, he has a major problem—that is, even his own department is ignoring him.Mr Acting Deputy President, at this point it is important that I remind you that I am quoting a minister of the federal government giving evidence at an estimates hearing. I am quoting a minister of the Crown giving evidence to a Senate committee about his administration of his own department. During the last estimates hearing, when we were attempting to find out how over $79 million in running costs might be allocated between the various transport modes, information which is readily available in last year's budget statement but is now not available, at the direction of the minister, the minister told the committee he had no idea what advice he might seek, therefore he could not say how this money might be spent. He said:I have got no idea what I might ask them next month to advise me on. It might be something you raise. It might be a good suggestion I have never heard of. I will ask for some advice then.For the minister's sake, I have some suggestions, and I would appreciate the minister seeking some advice on the merits of these proposals.I think it would be good to use some of the $79 million to have a look at the merits of providing an additional $120,000 to the Australian Maritime College in Launceston. This funding could be used to finance a feasibility study into the construction of a hydrodynamics facility at the AMC. If the feasibility study produced a positive outcome, the facility could be constructed at a cost of around $15.3 million. The hydrodynamics facility would enable the AMC to undertake modelling of the ocean environment, in particular deep water, wind and wave action. It would enable the Australian marine engineering industry to capture the benefits of the research. That would seem to me to be a good investment of part of the $79 million that the minister is yet to commit because he does not know what he might ask next month.The minister could also allocate an additional $10,000 for legal expenses to meet the costs of enshrining the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme in legislation. The money would be allocated to the budget item 650-2-03, `Compensation and legal expenses'. The effort would be to protect the scheme from the annual attack of the evil forces of the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet. Changes to the scheme would require a decision of parliament then, not just of the Minister for Finance and Administration. It would make life much easier for Senator Ian Macdonald.Senator Ian Macdonald might also like to increase the funding for the Remote Air Service Subsidy by $100,000. This would restore funding for the Remote Air Services Scheme to 1997-98 levels and provide an increase in the level of subsidy to enable service providers to better meet licensing requirements being imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The minister may not be aware of it—even though there is a specific reference to it in the budget papers and it is a key regional program—but this scheme is currently the subject of a review. It currently provides essential services to more than 200 remote locations and directly assists some 9,000 people. Additional funding may be required depending on the outcome of the review.Just one more funding change the minister might like to consider is making financial provisions for former employees of Australian National to continue to access travel concessions. Funding of about $85,000 is all that would be required. On that matter, the sale of Australian National was completed in November 1997. Travel concessions were made available to eligible former employees until 31 March 1999, when responsibility for concessions was transferred to the Department of Family and Community Services. At that time, the concessions were withdrawn because there was no `legal requirement' to pay them. I use the term `legal requirement' because I am quoting from correspondence from the government on the matter. While there was no technical legal obligation for the continued provision of the concessions, there was clearly a moral obligation—an obligation the government felt it should honour for some 16 months. When the government found it had no legal obligation, it stopped the program. Senator Ian Macdonald has a reputation for being mean-spirited. He could go some way towards addressing that problem by reinstating funding to ensure that these elderly retired AN workers enjoy a small but important entitlement.The real victims, unfortunately, of the poor performance of any federal minister are his or her constituents. Unfortunately, Senator Ian Macdonald's constituency is regional Australia. This section of the community has been doing it tough for some time. One only has to go back to a speech delivered by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr Anderson, at the National Press Club in February. Mr Anderson told the Press Club that `the sense of alienation, of being left behind and of no longer being recognised and respected for the contribution being made to the nation is deep and palpable in much of rural and regional Australia'. The appointment and, more importantly, the performance of Senator Ian Macdonald to this important portfolio have, in my view, only added to these concerns.11:39:006861Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 and related legislation. I take this opportunity to make a contribution about the current situation in politics in Australia and about one particular person who has contributed mightily to positive politics in this country. We have in the last couple of weeks seen a sea change—some might put it as the earth moving—in the political configuration in this country. Of course, it is being played out here in the Senate. I have for some time thought that we might see a move by the Democrats on issues to do with business, taxation and society. We certainly have. They have leapfrogged Labor in the political spectrum in a very permanent fashion to be very much now to the right of centre next to the coalition parties, with One Nation—shortly to be represented in this Senate, I believe—out there further still to the right.There are, through the tenor of the public, Senate and political debates of the last couple of weeks in particular, clear indications that this is going to be a permanent change and that a decision has been made by the Democrats to ensure that over the next two years, while jousting no doubt with the government on some issues, they will take part in a consultative process which allows government designs for legislation a better passage through the Senate.The thing that did astonish many people in the environment movement, me included, was that the Democrats picked up the bundle of environmental policies, which had grounded the Democrats on the side of Australia's environment over the last two decades, and took it with them as they leapfrogged Labor. They now find themselves captive to a degree to the Howard government's designs on the environment over the next two years. If we look at the last three years, we can see that the delivery for the environment is going to be measured in terms of dollars and cents, which is the poorest measure possible for environmental outcomes.The measurement of environmental excellence has to be in environmental indices themselves. Whether you look at global warming, the destruction of forests or the wellbeing of cities—the lifestyle of the people, the air we breathe and the water we drink—the indices are not improving in Australia. That is because this is not a government that has environmental teeth or that will legislate to ensure that those people who are creating environmental detriment, by law, are stopped. The experience right round the world is that you need that public educa tion. Putting out volumes of coloured brochures will influence the good—the people who do the right thing—but will not influence those who are motivated by things other than environmental excellence. The Democrats have now joined that line of political action, and I think it is going to be found very much wanting in the coming two years.It is interesting to look at what the make-up of the Senate will be as at midnight tonight, and certainly when we return in early August. The government will then simply require the Democrats to get legislation through the parliament. In fact, no other numbers will do, except for those basic matters like this appropriations bill where the Labor opposition and the government will line up necessarily the same way. Most pieces of legislation, of course, go through parliament with support all round, but I am talking about where contention comes in, like the big pieces of legislation we have dealt with in the last few days in the Senate. In that situation, where the Labor Party opposes what the government is doing, the government can look to the Democrats—the nine of them—or it can look to the other three components in the Senate: me as a Green, Senator Harradine as an Independent and, presumably, a One Nation senator. The three of us combined cannot give the government the numbers it requires. Its only way of getting legislation through is with the numbers that the Democrats provide.When you look at those numbers, it is all the more remarkable that the Democrats got so little change and gave in so much to the government on the GST and the diesel fuel rebate legislation, and then caved in almost totally on the environment legislation, when they had such enormous leverage to get so much more as we move into the new Senate. They forwent the opportunity to get changes which would have been much more consistent with their past performance, presumably because they did not want to be faced with the turmoil that comes of a party consistently blocking the government on big ticket items where the government might threaten a double dissolution. I do not know what the Democrats' reasoning is, but I do know that we are seeing a permanent change in politics and in the relationship between the Democrats and the government, which is going to be fascinating to watch in the next two years.I suspect that, time and again, the Democrats are going to give the government the numbers to put legislation through and then—as with the GST and the environment legislation—when that legislation is found wanting, when it hurts people like small businesses and there is reaction against it in the coming years, the government is going to turn around and say to its new friends, `You are to blame. If you hadn't changed the legislation, this wouldn't be happening.' That puts the Democrats in a somewhat invidious position, but they have taken that on of their own volition.It is also interesting to see the make-up on this side of the Senate. The Labor Party will also need the Democrats to get motions or amendments through the Senate, plus one other. That could be me, it could be Senator Harradine or it could be One Nation. It may be that I will look more kindly upon some of the social justice and environmental moves that will be made there. We have yet to see. But it has escaped the notice of quite a few observers that the numbers, with the Democrats and the Labor Party plus one, are here to see legislative changes, disallowances of regulations and motions put through the Senate. I have seen, for example, quite a bit of speculation that the Labor Party and the Democrats are going to establish an inquiry concerning Justice Callinan when the Senate resumes. The analysts need to look further, because another vote is required to support such a matter. It is a very complex issue and it is not in the hands of the Democrats and the Labor Party alone; it will depend on one of the three other senators being convinced that that is a good course of action to take. So far nobody has approached me about that matter.Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to pay tribute to your immediate predecessor in the chair, Senator Reynolds. Senator Reynolds is a remarkably warm-hearted, thoughtful and caring person who has been a positive contributor to this Senate for many years. Her departure will be a loss to the national parliament, although I suspect that Senator Reynolds is going to be a great contributor to public life in the years to come. I am delighted to know that she is, at least in part, returning to Tasmania where she is going to be an asset for the Tasmanian community, not least to the people of Launceston when she is there.I now want to turn to the main component of my thoughts today, and that is to my very dear colleague, Dee Margetts, who is also having her last day in the Senate. The other night in the corridor, after her terrific speech to the Senate, Dee Margetts was described to me by another senator as perhaps the one true legislator, in the fullest meaning of that word, in the Senate. We have had in Dee Margetts a person of enormous application to the whole complexity of the passage of legislation and therefore to the welfare of the people of Australia. I do not think anybody is going to countermand me when I say that Dee Margetts's contribution has gone far beyond her own light comment that it may mean that she has talked the most in here. It has never been without great concern for the welfare of Australia—not least Western Australians—that Dee Margetts has been on her feet in this place, fighting for the philosophy that she believes in. That philosophy can be summed up by her own inaugural speech back in 1993. Dee Margetts said:. . . I would like to bring a green perspective to a wide range of issues debated in this place and in the public arena . . . green politics does not encompass only environmental integrity; it also stands on the principles of social justice, peace and disarmament, and community participation in decision making.Six years later, we have an accredited senator who has carried out, in the fullest sense, that plan of hers in her contribution to the Senate.Dee followed Jo Vallentine and Christabel Chamarette from Western Australia into this place. All of them have made a very strong contribution to the life of the Senate and to the welfare of Australians—three wise women from the west bringing frank commonsense to the nation's wellbeing and an impact which is going to be felt long after Dee, as the last of them, leaves this place.Looking at Dee's CV for the last six years, it is far too great for me to go through point by point, but I want to pick out a few points. Dee, with her good humour, referred to the fruit loop appellation the other night. That was applied way back in the early days to Dee and to former Senator Christabel Chamarette. What they were doing—and Dee made a particular feature of this even after Senator Chamarette had left this place—was fighting the ramifications of the laissez-faire free-trade globalisation of everything that is to do with profits, with GATT then becoming the World Trade Organisation.Most people do not know that, long before One Nation was a twinkling in the eye of whoever was going to give it the great impetus it has had in recent years, Dee, with her green philosophy, recognised that this was not only disempowering Australians politically—because successive Labor and Liberal governments were transferring the obligation of responsible government from the parliament to the Stock Exchange and through the Stock Exchange to multinational corporations, the de facto world government—but was hurting people because it also involved a redistribution of wealth upwards. The trickle-down effect was bunkum. The trickle-up effect—and it was almost a cascade upward—occurred not least because of the World Trade Organisation's coming into being and removing tariffs willy-nilly and Australian governments wanting to do this ahead of other governments, thereby opening people's jobs and their wellbeing to competition, which meant that many Australians have unnecessarily suffered unemployment, poverty and disempowerment.The fruit loop appellation has gone because Dee Margetts, the warrior of that debate on the World Trade Organisation and legislation making Australia an early promoter of it, has been vindicated by time. She was the person who, point by point, argued out that legislation. As I remember it, Mr Acting Deputy President, it was totally unreported. But how right she was. If there is one thing that is a mark of a sterling parliamentarian it is that they will battle for issues before their time and set the foundations for the fight-back for the public good.Dee proposed the Senate Select Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling, and she ended up with a dissenting report on that. Again, she is ahead of the field. She represented her community and her own background very strongly in that matter. She will be shown to have been justified through that dissenting report as the nuclear issue continues to grow in public debate as Australia opens up to the question of whether we will be the world dumping ground for nuclear waste in the years ahead with the loopholes in the environment legislation which passed this place last week with the support of the Democrats.Dee took a formidable role in the elimination of landmines and getting Australia to sign an international protocol to get this scourge of humanity reduced and on the path to elimination from the world. She has been a fighter for the environment, not least the Western Australian environment. If I remember rightly, as far back as 1997 she passed a successful motion in this place to put a halt to the logging of the Giblet block, a fantastic part of the magnificent tall forests of Western Australia. That was before the real furore in Western Australia, which has seen political turmoil because nine out of 10 Western Australians supported the position that Dee brought to this Senate on behalf of her constituents two or three years ago, and certainly since she came into this place in 1993.It is on native title, however, that I remember Dee most. I sat in this seat, Mr Acting Deputy President, and watched her in full flight. You will remember it as well. So will many people on the other side of this parliament. Let me summarise it by saying that Dee Margetts took on for the indigenous people of this country the most strident role in defending their interests in a fairly hostile climate of rollback. It will not be easy to measure this, but I do know that the legislation that passed this parliament was the better for the contribution of this individual—this fighter with a sense of justice for the original Australians like nobody else's.When people in the coming century read about the passage of the Wik and native title legislation and wonder why it was so short of the mark, it will at least warm their hearts to know that she stood here and said it as it should have been said. She set a benchmark for decency and hauled the parliament back at least a little through her knowledge, her intelligence and her feeling for the original Australians, something which I am very proud to have been associated with.I want to thank Alan, Liz, Stuart, Amanda and Carol and previous staff members who have been part of Dee's team. I wish this remarkable Australian a terrific and long career. There has been talk about academia. I think that will be brief; she will be changing academia, not the other way round. I hope she comes back into politics. I know there is going to be further Western Australian representation. All I can say is that with the forests issue, the GST and the environment legislation, were the election held now, Dee Margetts would romp back into this place.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Mr Acting Deputy President, I wonder if I could abuse the point of order process just long enough to say that, as a fellow Western Australian and a member of the Labor Party, I acknowledge the services, the good work and the conscientiousness that Senator Margetts has given to this chamber. I do not want to argue the political issues, because we argue them all the time, but I think it is beyond argument that she is indeed a dedicated senator and has done a sterling job on behalf of her party.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—As you would be aware, there is no point of order!11:59:006865McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I also rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 , Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1999-2000 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 . These appropriation bills give members of parliament an opportunity to speak on a wide variety of subjects relating to the government's budget. I would like to address, ever so briefly, the issue of the government's tough on drugs policy. I understand that Australian families are under many pressures in this fast moving society, seemingly more so than generations before us. One of their major concerns is without doubt the drug issue, that their children may be susceptible to being drawn into the web of drug taking, and into the murky world of drug pushers, leading to addiction and often worse. It can affect any family, large or small, rich or poor. Moreover, the temptation can draw any member of the family, male or female—it has no rules. The consequences for a family are devastating and cruel. No-one wants it, yet no-one seems to have the answers to stop it. The answer may be that we may never stop it completely. In fact, I think we have to concede that we can never stop it completely.A measure of our success can be in how we stem the tide, how we reduce addiction, help addicts and make pushers pay at all levels. In raw statistics, in 1997, 631 Australians died from heroin overdoses and now, in 1999, those figures have greatly increased. Up to four in every five property crimes are now committed by someone with a drug dependency, without a doubt, heroin. There were 84,000 drug arrests across Australia in the year to July 1998, including over 10,000 arrests relating to heroin. We can single out heroin as being the major drug of addiction and the major concern that we have in society. I know there are many other varieties and cocktails of drugs, fashionable drugs, but heroin seems to be the absolute destroyer. Individuals and society pay a very high emotional price in respect of these raw statistics on drugs.There are three ways we can tackle the drug problem: education, treatment and law enforcement. The government, indeed all sides of parliament, places a very high priority upon the treatment of those directly affected by the drug problem and we are now well on the way to establishing a national drug treatment network across our cities and rural centres. The aim of this network is to bring treatment, education and support services within the reach of those who most need it. It is in this area that private and charitable organisations play a very important role in caring for those afflicted with a drug addiction. We have also provided communities with funding under the Community Partnerships Initiative to increase community awareness of the drug problem. The two arms are the rehabilitation centres, which are critical and are carried out predominantly by private charities and organisations, and the education projects, which include training schemes and peer education, which is definitely important. Through my experience, it is the peer pressure groups that lead many people into taking drugs. Who is part of the peer group is of great importance and great influence. Who the role models are is of great importance and has a great influence upon drug takers in the early years. Education projects also include information kits and the establishment of local resource centres. Funding has also been provided to church groups, parent associations, schools, the police, community centres and local businesses who have formed partnerships to provide local prevention services. You cannot get a more grassroots, and so it should be, attempt at prevention. It cannot exist without a grassroots education and treatment program for all of those areas I have mentioned—the parents, the police, the church groups, the business groups and the community centres. It has to be developed at that level. It is an integrated three-pronged approach which educates our children about the unacceptability and extreme danger of any level of illicit drug use, provides treatment to those who become dependent on illicit drugs and rehabilitation towards a drug free lifestyle and strengthens our law enforcement agencies to effectively fight the drug war.The area of law enforcement is where I have the most interest, being a member of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. To me, it is an area that needs double the effort because we want to make the drug pushers, at all levels, pay for their crime. For all the resources we put in, I think the return is highly successful. Only last week there was a huge drug bust in Victoria. If you were able to list—which I am unable to do today—the drug busts that have been carried out by the state police and the National Crime Authority, you would see that they are hugely successful for the dollars put in, if you want to put it that way, and for greatly influencing the supply of heroin in this country. I would like to see an extra focus on that area from the government and the parliament because I happen to think you are paid back for the efforts you put into it.To that end, the raw statistics in the budget indicate that the government has dedicated an additional $170 million to the crime-fighting area. As I said before and I stress again, this is an area that needs particular interest. I know that if you could get education right, you would not need to go any further than that, but that does not always work. I know rehabilitation is very important to prevent people going back and taking up that addiction again, but the law enforcement area with the NCA on the job not only has been successful but can be more successful if given the extra resources. However, we have already given $50 million over three years to establish a national crime information system. We have given $35 million over four years to the Australian Customs Service for increased search capacity and the purchase of X-ray technology to enhance the capacity for drug detection at the nation's borders. That basically says it all. That is where you are going to prevent the infiltration of heroin and cocaine into this country—at the national borders, not just at the airports. We know that they are brought in by ships not just through the ports but onto lonely and isolated beaches.Under the government's Tough on Drugs strategy, $24.2 million over four years is being given to the Australian Federal Police for four mobile strike teams. This is another very important and expensive area. Law enforcement against the drug trade is a very expensive area and it is a very big ask to constantly pour money into it when so many other people look at the other areas of education and treatment. Surveillance is a highly successful area. It is also very expensive, as you can imagine, with surveillance over 24 hours which could go on for over six or 12 months—sometimes two years. It is not just following; it is also tapping, using endless tapes. It is very expensive but very effective. Most drug busts come about by surveillance. It is long, it is excruciating—a lot of tape is run off before you get the evidence or the information you need—but it is a most important area. We have tipped more money into that area, at the request of the National Crime Authority.The sum of $21.4 million over four years will be provided for the government's Building Safer Communities program to develop new approaches to crime prevention. Fifteen million dollars over three years has also been allocated for additional family counselling and mediation dispute resolution services. Finally, I point out that $3.6 million has been allocated to extend access to justice for disadvantaged people in the rural and regional areas.I have raised this issue to highlight the fact that the government has increased its budget allocation for this important area of social concern. If you were to list the social concerns of our society and of a family, they would put unemployment and the drug problem as No. 1 and No. 2 or No. 2 and No. 1. Whatever order, they seem to be the two most serious concerns that cut deep into family harmony. We have increased the budget allocation to it and we do have a strategy. I would like to particularly focus on the law enforcement area and would be pushing hard for yet more funds, particularly for surveillance, in the next budget.12:11:006867Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Before I comment on the appropriation bills, I would like to place on record my thanks to my colleague Senator Brown for his very kind words today. It is a bit like being at your funeral in some ways. I am very grateful for those kind words of acknowledgment and also for the additional statement by Senator Cook and others who have spoken so kindly about my work in the Senate.In the time available it is not going to be possible to give the appropriations bills the degree of attention they deserve. What I intend to do is make some comments on matters arising out of the estimates hearings. The first point to be made is that the estimates process had its share of frustrations. It often does and the last estimates hearings were no exception. There are some officers who appear at estimates who recognise that senators are entitled to full disclosure and who provide assistance to senators in the way they provide information. But there are others who take a defensive, even—dare I say—retentive attitude, and it leads one to wonder what they are trying to hide.That attitude was epitomised in the responses of Dr Helen Garnett in responding to questions on Lucas Heights. In some ways, I guess she was a bit better than on some previous occasions. It is a sensitive topic that the local community and many of us outside the area have genuine concerns about. Every aspect of the process of moving towards the proposed new reactor for Lucas Heights has raised new questions. My problem was epitomised by the response to the question of Y2K compliance for the ANSTO supercomputer. The response—that ANSTO does not have a supercomputer—might have been true. I do not know. But it was a smart alec answer designed to derail a line of questions and it had that effect.Had I been misinformed in my briefing notes? We obviously had to find out. It was not till later that I checked up and, yes, ANSTO did acquire a supercomputer in the early 1990s. In fact, there was an Australian Audit Office report which was highly critical of ANSTO's process for acquiring the computer. So what happened to it? I do not know. I do know that a lot of money was spent on it only a few years ago. I would have been interested in hearing if it had paid its way, and whether it was Y2K compliant. But that is the kind of information which should be offered when a senator asks a question like the one I did. I might have to leave the supercomputer to others in this place to follow up.I did want to place on record my concern about the openness of officers at estimates. Sometimes something like 20 questions have to be asked. It has sometimes been like that with Defence, too—very specific technicalities are used to avoid answering a question. If we do ever corner Professor Garnett, she may end up saying, `Oh, that supercomputer', and then give some responses. But it is hardly the kind of thing that could go missing. If it is no longer used, I guess it would have been useful to say, `Oh, look, we did have that in the early 1990s but we no longer use it.' But no such response was proffered.The other concern I want to mention is in relation to questions I put on notice at estimates. As a senator whose term ends today, I would have thought it was fairly obvious that answers would be required in time for use in the appropriations debate taking place today—by the time we are debating this bill. When the current opposition was in government, there were a number of very robust debates about the timing for providing answers. As I recall, the turnaround time for answering questions taken on notice at Senate estimates was around eight or nine days, with the acknowledgment that after Senate estimates you would need the answers before you debated appropriations because estimates are supposed to replace an appropriations committee stage. In most cases they do. However, I believe the current opposition has dropped the ball.I guess the opposition are assuming that they will one day be in government themselves and that they may not want to have an opposition which demands answers before we debate the bills. I think that is perfectly reasonable. If there are some questions where it is totally not possible, then there are usually indications given that such answers are not possible. It is unfortunate that the government have been allowed to get away with this. I would like to see it tightened up, but I cannot see that happening in the near future.Those answers still to come are obviously still going to be available. I am certain my colleague Senator Bob Brown would like to see the answers. He is going to have an enormous load on his shoulders now that he is the only senator representing a Greens party in Australia, especially now that the Democrats have had such doubt cast on their credentials on environment and social justice issues. It may well be that those groups who would normally go to the Democrats—who do not always attend estimates; not everyone does—may be looking for other people to ask those questions for them.One of the issues Senator Bob Brown may need to keep a close eye on is the attempted clean-up operation at Maralinga. We have made various efforts to keep this issue before the Senate. It has significant ramifications for the local Maralinga Tjarutja who wish to be able to return to the area. It is an issue that Senators Campbell and O'Chee were prepared to pursue when they were in opposition, but they seem to have gone quiet on this issue in more recent times. I have pursued the issue with some vigour over the past few months with questions on notice and without notice, and I have sought to follow those up at estimates. The questions follow the suspension of in situ vitrification of the radioactive debris in the wake of an explosion in one of the pits at Maralinga.I have concerns about any process that puts a massive electric current through undifferentiated debris, effectively melting it and letting it solidify into a comparatively stable block. The explosion brought those concerns to a head. However, the subsequent developments, including information provided at estimates, leads me to question further. At estimates I was told that the in situ vitrification was unlikely to continue and any further clean-up would be by a hybrid process of separating the debris, burying some of it and vitrifying the rest.If this is the way it goes, I would have two concerns. One is that the process involves excavating the pits which contain, as has been admitted, radioactive plutonium and goodness knows what else. That is not to be undertaken lightly. I would want the ARPANSA licensing process to be an open, public and accountable one as a minimum requirement before this goes ahead. The other concern is that the burial of some of the radioactive debris under five metres of soil is totally inadequate. How does that compare with the requirements at the proposed nuclear waste repository? To go back to the five metres of soil, the answer given at estimates was that this is cheaper. One has to wonder: `Okay, there are problems with the in situ vitrification. There is a cheaper option. Whoopee! Let's go for that.' That is not what they said—it is my interpretation—but it is very worrying.Let us look at the comparison with the requirements for the proposed nuclear waste repository. Why is it not planned to move the debris to a properly constructed long-term repository if it is not to be vitrified? Is burial under five metres of dirt enough to satisfy the traditional owners, who are supposed to be consulted on these matters? And just how well are they being consulted? Perhaps the minister could tell us what changes there would be to the costings for the clean-up if this is the way it goes.To return to estimates: how much trust can we put in the advice provided at estimates? I wish I could say total trust. I asked Mr Harris of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources about the causes of the explosion. I said:We have been contacted by a nuclear veteran who claims he told the royal commission about all sorts of explosives, ammunition, fuel tanks and other dangerous stuff that was in those pits. Why therefore do we hear of surprise when one of these pits explodes during the in-situ vitrification process?The answer from Mr Harris was this:On the question of explosives, the advice from the British government was there would be a negligible chance of explosives being in that area. They were not used in those particular trials; they were used in other areas on the Maralinga test site as target response items, and we have a report from the British government about those.That was on 7 June. Yet over a month earlier Mr Harris had received a letter from the office of the Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Nuclear) at the Ministry of Defence in London. After preliminary remarks expressing regret `that you have had this unpleasant event', A.R. Wilson goes on to say:It is clear that the team at Maralinga were very lucky not to have had any injuries.That is very different from the assurances we have been given all along that nobody was at risk. But on the specific issue of there being `a negligible chance of explosives' the British have a different view from that ascribed to them by Mr Harris. The letter says:It is the current view that given the nature of these experiments incomplete detonation of the charges is a distinct possibility . . . There can be no guarantees that there are not small amounts of explosive residues in the pits. The probability would be greatest for the pits located at a pad site.The letter goes on to refer to the particular explosives used in the area of the Vixen B trials, which is the area of the current clean-up. It contains other information which casts doubt on the publicly stated position of the government—information which could have significant implications for the budget allocation for the clean-up. It does not need an explosive. Sometimes all it needs is a gas tank. Those blow up too when you put massive currents through the soil for days on end. In particular it says that the exhumation of pits containing explosives would need to be undertaken by `EOD specialists from the Army RLC'. If we are going to the hybrid process of exhume and separate, is the Australian Army going to do it? Where is the appropriation for that?As I have said, the response on the public record is that the hybrid option is now favoured. From other sources, however, I have been getting the indication that vitrification may be abandoned altogether in favour of a plan to simply bury the debris. This is an even more frightening prospect and flies in the face of the recommendations of the report by the Technical Assessment Group on the Rehabilitation of former nuclear test sites in Australia. For how long would five metres of soil protect the people and the environment of Maralinga? I would certainly like the minister to explain the discrepancies in the information provided to us on the record and in the information provided from other sources.I would like the minister to table the letter to Mr Harris from the British Ministry for Defence. Most importantly, it is not just about the issues—although they are extremely important. It is about whether or not, by a process of inaccurate information or of leaving out the information that can lead to the correct answers, we are in fact deceived at estimates. I leave the chamber without being able to deal with this further, but it is very important. Sometimes I notice that, if I am the only person asking a question in a particular field, maybe the officers at the table think they are safe to make broad statements because I may not get any backup from other people on that committee. That should not be the case and perhaps I am casting aspersions. But we should not be deceived at estimates and we should receive the full and frank advice of the officers at the table. When we find out later on that other information is quite different from that which we received, there should be a consequence. Otherwise, the accountability in this process is at risk.12:25:006870Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I would like to join with other colleagues here in wishing Senator Margetts all the best. I think, as Senator Brown said, you are one of the best legislators in the Senate and you will be sorely and genuinely missed, certainly from my perspective and from a number of other people's perspectives, as a very caring person with a very strong sense of justice. I have a lot of admiration for you and I wish you well in the future. Hopefully, you might at some stage come back. Good luck and thank you very much.The budget delivered very little real benefit to regional Australia. It effectively delivered cuts to local government and nothing to Australia's territories. For regional services, territories and local government, the budget contained more bluster than real money and real strategy. The coalition yet again empirically proved in this budget that there is no strategic approach to regional Australia. This is something which has not gone beyond the notice of people in regional Australia, who are talking about the lack of vision. The budget contained little more than a mishmash of promises reliant on the further 16 per cent sell down of Telstra and a number of small short-term programs.The great bulk of the coalition's so-called Regional Australia Strategy relied heavily on the further sale of Telstra. It consisted of Telstra bribes to try to make the further sale palatable to regional Australia, which is set up to be the bigger loser in the long term as a result of the sale. We all know, of course, what the government's real agenda is; it is not a secret. The Prime Minister has said that the government will proceed to the next stage and sell all of Telstra. I do not think members of the National Party, particularly in Queensland, are going to be particularly happy with this, given the National Party's policy in relation to the full sale of Telstra. I know some consternation on that matter within the National Party in Queensland is on the public record. Let me come back to the programs. What happens when the money runs out in terms of the one-off capital injection? What will be left for regional Australia? In public policy terms, I think we have not only a bad public policy but also a very clumsy one. Most of the programs in terms of the 16 per cent sale of Telstra are predicated on dividing the figure by six, which is the number of states, and giving the remainder to the territories. I do not think that is equitable and it certainly does not take into account states like Queensland and Western Australia and a territory like the Northern Territory which, by the tyranny of distance, have major difficulties with telecommunications. I think a lot more thought could have gone into apportioning the actual funds that the government announced, separate from the specific arrangement for Tasmania.The Rural Transaction Centres Program, a flagship program for the government, is—with the exception of a very small kick-start, which will come out of the recurrent expenditure from the relevant department—almost entirely reliant on the 16 per cent sell down. This program has funding for only five years and after that there will be no money available. While, superficially and conceptually, it sounds reasonably innocuous and quite a reasonable proposition, the devil as always is in the detail. In estimates, the minister confirmed that this program is essentially predicated on the 16 per cent sale of Telstra. If the sale had not gone ahead, there would be no Rural Transaction Centres Program. That is not a vision for rural and regional Australians—that is quite simply a sop to rural and regional Australians.In estimates, the minister also made it clear that the program may extend to the provision of a number of government services, including Centrelink, the Job Network, tax, veterans' affairs, immigration and Australia Post. This is all very interesting to us and obviously we will be pursuing this assiduously in future estimates. Any such extension of the scope of RTCs, along the lines that the minister advised in estimates, potentially enables the government to abrogate its responsibility for the provision of basic services to small communities. We suspect, and we hope that we are wrong, that it could see further closures and privatisation potentially of Australia Post—which is linked into the deregulation agenda that the government has already flagged—Centrelink and so on. This also raises a whole lot of issues in relation to privacy and we will be traversing those again.Whilst the coalition has left the door open for the provision of government services by RTCs, it has made it explicitly clear that there will be no funding after five years. Many communities may only get one-off funding. It may be in the nature of kick-start capital injection with some potential for recurrent funding but, at the end of the five years, if the RTC itself is not self-sustaining, it will receive no further government assistance. This is clearly a difficulty which I think the government is going to have to face in terms of ensuring that these services, once they are off the ground and happening in regional and rural Australia, do not fall over because of lack of infrastructure or lack of assistance. The guidelines are very loose—this is no surprise in terms of this portfolio—and are open to interpretation by the advisory panel, which includes two former coalition members of parliament and the minister. The government can be assured that we will be following this assiduously in estimates.A large number of rural and regional programs do not have any more money after the next two years. What happens, we ask, to rural communities after the next two years? Where is that vision? Where is the ongoing funding? Everybody in this chamber knows—whether they are prepared to say it here or not—that what people in rural and regional Australia require is an ongoing commitment in relation to funding and a cohesive, integrated government agenda. The rural women's domestic violence strategy continues to do very little. Now in its third year, almost no money has been spent and all that is expected for the next year is a workshop to talk about domestic violence in rural Australia. I urge the government to get a move on with this program because it is very critical.There are commitments that the government has not delivered on. The coalition promised $91.5 million for a regional skills program but came up with only $51 million; the coalition promised to spend $30 million expanding Medicare Easyclaim but came up with only $19 million—a $50 million shortfall. Where has that money gone, and where is the commitment? The massive cuts to regional Australia have already been traversed in previous appropriations debates. They include the regional development program of $150 million, which was axed; the cuts to ABC services to regional Australia; the axing of the Working Nation program, which was generally very well supported by regional Australia; the cuts to government services to regional Australia; and so on.There is no joy for local government in this budget either. The coalition sought to rid itself of responsibility for local government in the tax package despite the strenuous objections of local government. The Democrat-coalition deal forced a begrudging coalition and a very begrudging minister to maintain Commonwealth responsibility for local government funding. The minister made his feelings about the continued existence of his own portfolio and responsibility for local government very clear when he claimed, in estimates, that local government was furious with the Democrat-government deal and, bizarrely, he said that he would not like to be a Labor member in Queensland. This was in relation to the local government deal. Madam Acting Deputy President, it was very odd because, as you well know, it was not our deal: it was a deal between the coalition and the Democrats. I am not sure where the minister was coming from there, but that is not unusual.I think what the minister was saying was that, through the strenuous efforts of the Labor Party in attempting to ensure that the Commonwealth retained responsibility for local government, we were successful. We are prepared, very graciously, to accept the credit for that and thank the minister for his backhanded compliment. Even though local government funding will now remain with the Commonwealth, councils are still likely to be hit hard with the costs of administering and complying with the GST. The communities they serve are likely to face a GST on top of the nominal fees that councils charge for the provision of basic community services and facilities—not commercial services; community services.The GST bills have been rammed through the Senate. We still have no idea what the impact of the GST will be on the local government sector. The minister made it clear in question time only the other day that he still did not know, or was not prepared to let on, when he told the Senate—and I quote from Hansard:I have said to local government that, as the legislation is passed and as we know exactly what the situation is and what the system will be for local government, then I would sit down with them . . . It is a bit difficult once the old horse has bolted. We are talking about the application of the GST in local government. We are talking about a sphere of government that is elected, that has to budget, that is very concerned about the impact of the GST in terms of its rates base, that is concerned about the potential truncation of services and so on. It is extraordinary that, on the day the Senate passed the ANTS bill, the minister was still unable to enlighten us in any way whatsoever as to how his own portfolio would be affected by the GST.We still do not have a clue whether local government will be forced to charge a GST on a raft of community services and facilities, including the local seniors centres, school holiday activities, community bus services, exercise classes for the aged and even photocopying for school projects at the local library. There are not enough people in the parliament generally—I obviously exclude you from this, Madam Acting Deputy President—who understand the plethora of services that local government provides. I think it depends which state you come from. If you come from Queensland, Victoria or New South Wales you are only too aware of the services, but there are differences in the way that local government operates. In some states it provides a huge range of services. In Queensland, for example, one of the local councils runs an aged care facility, which is something that simply would not happen in my state of Tasmania at this point—it may well happen in the future.What we do know is that local government faces large set-up and compliance costs as it effectively becomes a tax collector for the federal government. The Local Government Association of Queensland has commissioned KPMG to estimate the start-up and ongoing compliance costs for councils in Queensland. The report shows initial GST compliance costs of up to $200,000 and ongoing compliance costs of up to $15,000 per council, plus a cash flow effect of up to $400,000 for councils in Queensland—something I noticed, interestingly, the minister did not demur from when I asked a question the other day in that respect.Despite the large GST compliance costs likely to be borne by local government, there is not much in this budget for local government. There is the pitiful amount of money in the Local Government Incentive Program, with the Local Government Development Program being abolished. The LGIP is simply there to help councils with the administration costs of the GST. The guidelines are quite explicit. That is fine, but what sort of quantum are we looking at here? There will be $7 million over two years for 710 councils to see them through the implementation of a GST. After that they get nothing.That works out to $10,000 a council over 10 years. That is not going to help them very much in relation to the implementation of the GST. It is not really money for local government to improve service delivery for local communities or to build the capacity of local councils; it is just a bit of short-term money to try to assuage some of the concerns that have been raised by local government in relation to the cost of GST implementation. It is a very pale imitation indeed of Labor's original $48 million Local Government Development Program.In estimates the minister made it clear that the LGIP was pretty much policy on the run and that there were no formal guidelines or processes in place to allocate the funding, even though the GST is, to say the least, imminent in terms of prospective planning. The LGIP provides us with a true glimpse of the lack of vision—in fact no vision whatsoever—that this government has for local government and its lack of understanding about the role that local government plays in communities as a genuine partner with the federal government and state governments.Whilst the lack of vision for regional Australia and for local government permeates the government benches, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government actually epitomises, from our perspective, the lack of vision. From our perspective he is visionless and uninspiring. The opposition in fact is questioning his competence. Senator O'Brien gave a very forensic and excellent speech previously which dissected the minister's performance at estimates. In fact, on this side of the chamber he is fast becoming known as a bit of a Basil Fawlty in terms of the way he operates, his continual challenges to the President in terms of his lack of understanding of standing orders—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Abusing journalists.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That is correct, Senator Sherry. When the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 February this year commented on the lack of original thought amongst government frontbenchers, Minister Macdonald was one of the three government ministers identified as a `dullard'. After only four months in the job, this minister has managed to distinguish himself by his—9X5ELLISONSenator Ellison—Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I would ask that the word `dullard' be withdrawn. I do believe that is unparliamentary.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Madam Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, I am not sure that the minister understands. I am actually quoting from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald .10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—I am advised, Senator Mackay, that even if you are quoting—as I think you are—it does not change the nature of it being unparliamentary. That is my advice.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Madam Acting Deputy President, just to clarify: even if I am quoting from an article that casts aspersions on a minister it is still unparliamentary?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That is my advice, Senator. If you like, I will refer the matter to Madam President, because I do understand that you are quoting.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: if you are to refer it to Madam President, could I point out that it may lead to a ridiculous situation where the rest of the public—the community—has information put before it but that information cannot be tendered into this parliament. That inconsistency is something that we should be addressing.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On the point of order, I agree that there are sometimes issues in the standing orders and in the practice of this place that need to be rethought. That is why I am referring it to Madam President. Please continue, Senator Mackay.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—In relation to estimates, we have had a very hard row indeed to hoe with Senator Ian Macdonald. He has distinguished himself as being very obstructive in the way he has behaved, and at times he has bordered on being petulant. Time and time again in estimates committees we have seen him as a minister who basically has not moved out of opposition, and that is the problem. He seeks to big-note himself by being uncooperative, repeatedly refusing to answer reasonable questions and repeatedly preventing departmental officials from answering questions themselves—much to their embarrassment.I would like to draw particular attention to the minister's behaviour in the last round of estimates. This is the subject of a minority report from the estimates committee, which has been tabled today. Minister Macdonald's behaviour in estimates was so extraordinarily poor that the chair, Senator Crane, who under very difficult circumstances acquitted himself well, was forced to produce an addendum to the estimates committee report, and the opposition had to go to the trouble of writing a minority report to the addendum. Obviously Senator Crane had two ways to go: he could either let the cat out of the bag and say that the minister's behaviour was unacceptable in estimates, or he could go on the offensive and say that perhaps there is a problem with the estimates process. Our view is that there is no problem with the estimates process. Why put the Senate to all that trouble when we are dealing with one recalcitrant minister?The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee estimates dragged out for 52 hours as the committee sought answers to very straightforward questions. This is a minister who, through sheer intransigence, forced the committee to go into suspension three times to consider his behaviour, putting his own colleagues and Senator Crane in an extremely difficult position. Senator Crane said at the end of one tortuously long day that it was the worst day of estimates that he had ever experienced. I do not think he was talking about us; I think he was vocalising the frustrations he was feeling from attempting to chair the estimates committee.We got very little information from Senator Ian Macdonald. On the very day that the Prime Minister exhorted the coalition to go out and sell the tax package, he simply refused to answer any questions at all on the GST on the spurious basis that he would only answer questions on the 1999-2000 budget, not on the out years. Bizarre! But on the Rural Transaction Centres Program he was able to wax lyrical—a program which was predicated on the 16 per cent sale of Telstra, the legislation for which had not even gone through the Senate at that stage. So there are some clear inconsistencies there. We find that extraordinary. Even yesterday when he attempted to apologise to the people who produce Inside Canberra he managed to give them another swipe. For goodness sake, if you are going to apologise there is some capacity to be gracious. In his apology he said:The way some of the comments are written, I can understand why people would suggest that the line followed in the newsletter is similar to the Labor Party line . . .Inside Canberra have had a go at me over the years, and that is fair enough.In conclusion, I would just like to say to this minister that it is not personal, it is business. What we are trying to do is get information legitimately. It is not about him, it is about the portfolio. We would urge this minister to grow up. We would urge him to get out of his opposition mode, try and be a bit more professional in the estimates process and not put his own colleagues through the kind of torture that they had to go through during the estimates process. Basically it is not about you, Minister, if you happen to be listening; it is about being professional and it is about being up-front. And it is business, it is not about you. In terms of the future running of the estimates, we would urge Senator Ian Macdonald to take a more mature attitude, and I think then we would have a much more pacific row to hoe in relation to the process.12:45:006874Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Twenty years ago next month, a group of Australian farmers made an historic decision to maximise their political impact by creating a single unified body to more effectively represent them in their dealings with Federal, state and local governments. They formed the National Farmers Federation as a new peak body to replace more than 20 individual farm groups which had previously been acting as state and national commodity representatives. On 20 July 1979 this far-sighted group of farmers met at the old Industry House in Barton, just a kilometre or so from here, to formally establish Australia's new peak farm body. That meeting quite sensibly ended years of very counterproductive activity, rivalry and conflict which had allowed political parties of all colours to negotiate with whichever group suited them best at the time. That divide and rule policy certainly did not help advance the arguments of our primary producers.The structure of the National Farmers Federation has changed very little since those early days. It was a small group of highly professional men and women with a clear focus and more than a modicum of courage who could fearlessly present what were sometimes quite unpopular policy positions. I am very proud to say that for five years during the 1980s I was a member of that organisation, at a time when primary producers achieved significant milestones, using powerful and unbeatable combinations of courage, clear argument and strategic planning. My personal highlight during those special years was when more than 40,000 farmers and their families came from all over Australia to Canberra on 1 July 1985 to argue their case for tax reform and for the removal of the industrial obstacles that then shackled their highly productive properties. Interestingly enough, it is 14 years ago tomorrow since that incredible day outside Old Parliament House.How interesting it is to recall that it was a national taxation summit on tax reform, being chaired by the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, that attracted the nation's primary producers to our national capital. It is also fascinating to recall that the policy proposition unsuccessfully being put to the tax summit on that crisp winter's day by then Treasurer Keating was for a goods and services tax. I think he called it option C. But, as he said, the wheels fell off the cart—assisted, as I recall, by very strong opposition from ACOSS. So it continues. Perhaps, though, if the opposition had gone to their dusty party archives, they may have found that the arguments that Paul Keating used that day are still as relevant as ever, and in fact they have been heard in this chamber over the last few days, before this government successfully passed its historic tax reform legislation.The National Farmers Federation of those days concentrated on the policy issues that were of concern to farmers. The committee structure at that time reflected those very clear priorities: economic, industrial, machinery, shipping and energy. How little has changed in those policy priorities over those twenty years; and how much has been delivered, particularly since this government came to power in 1996. How excited the members of that economic committee would be to see that this government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, has delivered to all families, particularly farm families and small business families, the lowest interest rates in 30 years. What a benefit to all Australian families trying to reduce their debts and what a benefit to our farm families trying to reduce that crippling farm debt brought about by the obscene high interest rates from 13 years under the Labor government.The original members of the NFF's industrial relations committee would also find their landscape fundamentally changed from those days of 1979. Our government has dramatically changed the way farm businesses are able to operate and in particular the way in which employers and employees are able to sit down and negotiate together, free from coercion and free from compulsion. Of course, two of the great industrial relations milestones delivered by the farmers were during my time with the National Farmers Federation. The wide combs dispute gave shearers the right to choose their own shearing comb and improve their own productivity in the shearing sheds, and the Mudginberri meat dispute challenged the archaic union tally system. Both of these industrial relations milestones were absolutely fundamental along that path to industrial freedom.The farm machinery committee, which I understand no longer exists, would also find great delight in the taxation changes we put through this chamber in just the last week. Our tax reform package has delivered dramatic improvements in the way farmers are able to import farm machinery. Of course, productivity gains through the use of new machinery not even dreamed of twenty years ago have enhanced the ability of farmers to become more efficient.Perhaps the greatest achievement in the 20-year history of this great organisation has come more recently. After the Mudginberri meat dispute, which extracted $1.7 million in damages from the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union for its part in the fight which disrupted a small Northern Territory abattoir for months, there was little debate within the NFF about what should be the next target to feel the warm wind of reform by farmers. Quite simply, there was no argument: it had to be the docks. Without doubt, the waterfront—with its chronic inefficiencies, years of sabotage of our farm products, and the continuing disruption to trade by quite disgraceful trade union standover men—was determined as the next target for reform, as it had been when that very first conference was held just a kilometre away from here.However, this proved to be a more difficult mountain to climb, and it has taken another 11 years and some people with vision, courage and the personal tenacity to hold the line when the going got tough. The results have been absolutely spectacular. There have been dramatic increases in productivity, increased reliability, up to 400 per cent lifts in productivity per man in some ports and—fancy this!—a new pride in work performance. There have been major changes in pay rates, with bonuses for performance replacing overtime, so that individuals are taking home more money. They now feel, not surprisingly, a great sense of achievement because their work has improved, their involvement in their work has improved and they are free from the coercion that characterised the old waterfront. The days when the waterfront was run by a small group of standover men have gone.The other day it was said that if there were stevedoring olympics, the Australian waterfront would be in the finals. I say: if our waterfront were in the finals, farmers would undoubtedly award the gold medal to Chris Corrigan, who courageously delivered to this nation a waterfront that importers and exporters, including primary produces, can be proud of. My information is that many of the thousands of people working on the waterfront are now going home a good deal richer and a good deal more satisfied with their day's work than they were before.The last of these policy committees of the NFF of 20 years ago concerned energy and fuel—a fundamental cost on all farms. How proud the members of that committee of 1979 would have been if they were sitting in the gallery of this chamber just yesterday as our government delivered savings in diesel costs worth millions of dollars to our primary producers, and a massive annual saving of $2.8 billion a year in all fuel costs—on road, off road and rail. How proud the founding fathers of the National Farmers Federation would be of their organisation today.In particular, I would like to mention the founding president, Sir Donald Eckersley, now a grand old man in his 80s who lives with Lady Eckersley in Western Australia. He was the federation's first president and he made a distinguished contribution in those days. I had the pleasure of meeting him again when I was in Longreach for the recent anniversary conference. Of course, the National Farmers Federation has changed over those 20 years. All the lobby groups that operate in the national capital have changed. The federation now has its own building. In the days when I worked with the National Farmers Federation, it was in a suite of offices above the Press Club. Subsequently, the organisation built its own building.I remember very well when the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, officially opened that building. The opportunity was taken by the then president, Mr McLachlan, to present Mr Hawke with an Akubra. There was some debate about whether he should have an Akubra which was called `Boss of the Plains', but I think it was decided in the end that he should have one called `The Rover'. Interestingly enough, the one we bought fitted him perfectly. It was a great and very exciting day for all of us, and I remember it with a great deal of pleasure.As the National Farmers Federation has changed over those years and its staff has grown, so has the range of issues covered and so has the complexity of the global trading market, which has sharpened our international focus. However, primary production remains one of our most significant export sectors. The gross value of farm production last year reached almost $28 billion. It is perhaps an appropriate coincidence that this morning a former distinguished NFF president, Mr Ian McLachlan, released a document which examines the future direction of the wool industry—a once great primary industry which is now, sadly, in serious economic difficulties.As Mr McLachlan said at his press conference in this building just an hour ago, the wool industry has no magic puddings and there are no messiahs. The path back for the wool industry will be a difficult one. It may be that the wool industry will never again be one of our major export industries. That is something that those of us who have been involved with primary industry for much of our lives find very difficult to believe. It is a tragedy, and I think it can be traced back to the propping up and collapse of the spectacularly unsuccessful Reserve Price Scheme. The future for the wool industry lies with market niches, improved research and development and, of course, improved technology—which, in turn, will produce a product for the very demanding export markets that are now looking to fine micron wool rather than, as we call it in South Australia, the bread-and-butter wools that South Australia historically has produced.I for one wish the wool industry well. I have no doubt that the report which I have just received and have not yet had time to read will prove to be a very important contribution to the wool industry debate in this country. It is, interestingly enough, the 55th report on the wool industry that has been produced in recent years, and I hope that we will not need any more. It is also interesting to know that, since 1937, wool growers in this country have contributed over $12 billion in levies and taxes to their industry and to the government, and it is a great tragedy—and one that I am sure is shared by many people in this chamber—that the wool industry now finds itself in such great economic difficulties.Twenty years ago a group of farmers realised that unity is strength. They combined to form one of this nation's most powerful and successful lobby groups—a group in which I was very proud to serve and which has now come of age. Long may it continue to serve the farmers of Australia.13:00:006877Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Seeing that the government deputy whip is over there, I might start today on his superannuation. I read in this morning's paper an article by a journalist that said that Senator O'Chee was entitled to take a $700,000 lump sum. I am not sure any MP, no matter how long they have been here and how high their office is, could ever get that amount of income. What the journalist has done is amortised out Senator O'Chee's claim presuming that he lives forever, got it at $1.4 million and then halved it because you can take half as a lump sum. What absolute nonsense! I hope I do not embarrass you here, Senator O'Chee, but this is absolute nonsense.Senator O'Chee did not leave here voluntarily. He was a victim—which any one of us could be—of electoral misfortune. So his claiming of any superannuation is done at behest of the Queensland voters in a proportional representational system in which the fluke of preferences and quotas—the way they are struck—means that he missed out. He could have stood in an election before this and got half the votes he got now and actually got up. It was simply because One Nation got exactly the quota that Senator O'Chee missed out. Otherwise, had they been substantially below quota—even by 0.1 per cent of a quota—I think Senator O'Chee would have remained here, because the rest of the preferences flowed through.But how can a newspaper let that sort of article run with that sort of inanity and stupidity and miscalculation in it? They can do it because it is a good way of denigrating politicians. The fact is that, at the very best, Senator O'Chee could take a nominal $225,000 lump sum, before tax, and all of it in Senator O'Chee's case would have been subject to the 1983 rules changes and beyond. That sort of article picking on one individual is bad enough—which has happened in the last few months—but because they finally get it so wrong the editor of that newspaper should do something about it. They are very quick to criticise us. And I am very quick to say that, in that sense, I hope that Senator O'Chee will not be regarded according to the terms of that article.However, I want to comment today on the behaviour of some ministers in this government, and the debate on the appropriation bills is about the only opportunity you have other than on the adjournment. I first of all want to follow up the remarks of a couple of colleagues on Senator Ian Macdonald's behaviour at estimates committees. I have watched estimates committees from both sides of the table for 18 years, and I have said—even though I am not a Senate chauvinist; probably the reverse of it—that the Senate estimates committee is what distinguishes this chamber from almost any other chamber in the world. People in state politics look to it and people overseas look to it.The estimates process—for all its faults and despite some of the inanities of the questions and some of the turgidness of the cross-examination—is the one set of committees that keeps government more honest than any other, along of course with the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. This is the one area where governments cannot hide. This is the one area where they face consistent cross-examination. Question time does not do that—a minister can get up and answer any way he likes. No matter how many supplementary or follow-through questions, a skilled minister can avoid answering the question. It is much harder at an estimates committee.In the main, you would have to say that this government has approached estimates committees like the previous one—with a certain resignation to their fate and to having to spend days there answering questions. But I read the last set of estimates—having been to the previous one in Senator Ian Macdonald's committee—and, frankly, I am disgusted. The constant refusal to answer questions or give a good reason for not answering the questions is apparent right through the transcripts. One wonders what the motive for that is. Is it that he cannot hack it? Is it that he does not want to risk his arm and actually get caught out through lack of knowledge or inconsistency?This does not happen with the rest of the ministers. Senator Herron has never been highly rated on this side of the chamber as being massively on top of his portfolio, but there he is at estimates flashing outside the off stump, occasionally getting a snick and occasionally surviving. And we have Senator Hill at estimates, who occasionally tells witnesses to answer questions when they have not fully done so. Then we have Senator Newman at estimates. She rarely answers a question but rarely inhibits the departmental secretary in answering questions of administration or policy on her behalf. Yet we get to this one committee and time and time again in the transcript you see, `I refuse to answer questions.' Let me give you an example: `I'm not going to answer any questions on GST,' says Senator Ian Macdonald. Yet there is funding directly within those estimates showing how his own department is going to deal with the GST over the next year in its preparation. He refused to answer any questions on that.Had we had more time, we would have had to invoke, for the first time since we have been in opposition, an amendment to the appropriations bills to bring Senator Ian Macdonald down to this chamber to answer the questions he refused to answer. But he has been protected from that course of action—one that we would take only with the greatest regret—by the guillotine at the moment because these bills must be passed today, being 30 June. But, really, I think it is up to Senator Hill and his colleagues to say to Senator Ian Macdonald, `You've taken the step up, you've become a minister; you actually have to fulfil your responsibilities under that, not only to the government but also to this chamber.'I express a similar disappointment with some recent actions by Senator Newman. This is in regard to making press clippings available to shadow ministers. No government has an impeccable record on this. Every now and then some minister, for whatever reason, decides not to provide these clippings. Remember, Madam Acting Deputy President, the marginal on-cost is very, very small. You would hear that argument from the Treasury over the pulping of the ANTS package. The marginal cost of providing those clippings is very small. But on 11 June, Dr David Rosalky, the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services, wrote the following letter:Dear Mr SwanEarlier this week you asked that my department provide you with electronic transcripts of media interviews related to yourself and Senator Newman.I consulted with Senator Newman's office to follow up your request, and wish to advise that we will not be providing you with electronic transcripts. In the course of our discussions, Senator Newman's Chief of Staff instructed that the department also stop providing copies of departmental press clips to members of the opposition.Consequently, I am writing to advise that we have asked Media Monitors to stop delivering press clips to your office. Note the words by the department secretary: `I've been instructed.' I am not going to complain about the non-provision of electronic transcripts; there is no tradition in this parliament to do so. But I do think that this letter, the instruction from Senator Newman's office, shows that Mr Swan is doing his job very effectively—so effectively he has to be punished by not having the Department of Family and Community Services clips given to his office.As I said, no government has an unblemished track record in this regard, but I was a minister for nine years, and I never once refused the provision of the clips to my shadow ministers. It was hard to keep track of them when I was defence minister. After all, I had as parliamentary shadows Senator Durack—I finished him off—and then I had Mr Downer, Senator Hill, Mr Reith and Senator Newman. I had five of them over that time. Prior to that, I had two shadow ministers for immigration and one when I was home affairs minister. So over that time I had eight shadow ministers in nine years. I am sorry I did not get one a year. But the fact is that I never once refused any of those people newspaper clippings, briefings or base visits and always made sure when in immigration that they in opposition got a speaking spot on the platform.But let us come to Senator Newman's actions here. When she was shadow minister for defence, she used to receive the newspaper clips. However, she complained to my office that they did not arrive on time in the morning. So I instructed my office to photocopy the newspaper clips the moment they got to my office and walk them around to Senator Newman's office. Often she got to read the clips before I did because I was inevitably caught up in cabinet subcommittees. So what a mean-spirited action by Senator Newman in not providing the newspaper clips when we took every step possible to extend those courtesies to her in government. A stop should be put to this pettiness. It is always possible that Senator Newman is not fully aware of this, that it was her chief of staff that did this particular thing without reference to it, but I would be surprised. But she should countermand the order. She has had her petty revenge for a couple of weeks. Why not establish and reciprocate the courtesy shown to her when she was shadow minister for defence?We often have a saying in this chamber, `What comes around goes around.' I was watching the World Cup final—I admit it—in my office with Senator Faulkner the other night, and when the cameras zoomed in on the special guests box, we saw Bob Hawke there and then we saw Alexander Downer there. Both John Faulkner and I said, `Oh, isn't it good that he could go and see the cricket. It's good that he can get there; that Australia is represented.' Then a few criticisms came out that maybe he should have been spending more time trying to resolve the Serbian imprisonment of CARE workers, and we dismissed them. But when you go back and have a look at the explanation about when the tickets were bought for Mr Downer or when the arrangements were made, everything has been fogged over. So we do not know whether that was an arrangement made on the day he came back to London or before. But I think it would be a bit churlish for me to suggest that he cut short his Belgrade visit—as some may have inferred—and went to the cricket. I do not believe that. If he was in London and had hours to kill, why not go to the cricket? Any one of us would have, let's face it.But what makes it a bit galling is to go back and read the Hansards of 1997 showing Mr Downer, in response to a set-up dorothy dix question, attacking other Labor ministers for going to Lords, just to make a cheap political shot—ending his answer with `Oh dear, oh dear!' Well, Mr Downer, oh dear, oh dear, the words you said then come back to haunt you now. But it not just those words that come back to haunt Mr Downer. When he was shadow foreign affairs spokesman he was constantly critical of the then government for their treating of issues when Australian citizens were taken as hostages. He said, `These are all solvable. These could all be fixed up; it is just that Senator Gareth Evans is not willing to do so.' Doesn't it change a bit when you get into government? Why can't Mr Downer flick his fingers and solve the imprisonment of the CARE workers? Because life is more complex than that. It is not as simple as the platitudes and the opportunistic interventions you make in opposition.I think the greatest thing he focused on was the unfortunate Wilson situation. Yet here he is now as Minister for Foreign Affairs having a crack at the Wilson family for being `ungrateful'. The iron law of government is that, when families affected by bereavement attack you for incompetence, you wear the lumps, as Senator Gareth Evans did and many other ministers have done in the past. You do not have a crack back at the family, and that is exactly what he did. So what were going to be fairytale solutions in opposition now are confronted with realities. We should not condemn Mr Downer for not being able to release the CARE workers. These are complex issues. We should give him time to work on it—the very time he would never extend to any Labor ministers at the time.While we are talking on churlish matters and ministerial behaviour, can you imagine a more churlish decision than that made by Mr Ruddock just a few weeks ago? Everyone in the Australian parliament supported the government on the Kosovar refugees. Indeed, colleagues failed to get up in this place and discuss the matters simply so we could get the legislation through. Some of those colleagues wanted to point out that some of the potential venues for the Kosovar refugees were not necessarily suitable, but they all curtailed their own rights and we pushed the bill through so that it could be done in time for the Kosovar refugees coming to Australia.What is Mr Ruddock's reaction? He will appoint goodwill officers. He will appoint liaison officers, patrons, to this particular thing. That is fair enough. It will be good to get a bit of parliamentary input into this. And guess what? All seven were members of the Liberal-National coalition. That is not a bipartisan approach. That is to do with petty, political point-scoring in this country. It is not something that Mr Ruddock normally does.I know he had a major disappointment in announcing on AM that no Kosovar refugees would come to this country, only to have cabinet take a 180-degree turn three hours later. I know that he has now finally rectified that situation by trying to embrace all elements of the Australian parliament. I wonder what Senator Tierney thought when the acid got dropped on him. He would have loved to have a co-patron at that stage to assist him at Singleton. The whole idea of plotting this for political exploitation backfired very rapidly.Moving on to the next minister, Senator Vanstone: have we ever had a more political Justice Minister than Senator Vanstone? Most of us always cut just a little more slack to Mr Williams, because he is the first law officer in the land. We know that most of the decisions he makes will not be political ones. They will be based on the law or on as good an interpretation of the law as you can find. This does not apply to Senator Vanstone. She was up here day after day, politicising the drugs debate—how low can you get?—just for the New South Wales election, by attacking the police commissioner and the New South Wales government and producing one set of distorted statistics after another.I know there is immense disappointment in Senator Vanstone that she has been axed out of cabinet, axed out of a real job and been given the Justice thing. But constantly at question time or anywhere else, Senator Vanstone is in there for the political angle—not for the proper administration of the portfolio and not the supervision of the agencies that are within the portfolio area, but constantly trying to exploit any political angle.We can all remember her, of course, going on at great length at how a previous Labor government had granted Christopher Skase a passport. Have we heard her once get up in this chamber and mention that the Australian government recently granted a new passport to an Australian citizen charged with a serious drug offence in Thailand? Where is the consistency in this particular approach? This Australian government issued that wanted person, who is already on Interpol's 10 most wanted list, with a passport. Doesn't anyone see the parallel between this and Skase? In the end, we have had thousands of words on Christopher Skase in the chamber from Senator Vanstone. He is no nearer to returning to Australia now than I think he was five or seven years ago when Mr Lavarch pursued his extradition within the courts.Summing up what I have been saying today, none of these issues amount to a hanging offence, but it does start to get the grubby flavour of some of these ministerial things. Senator Macdonald's defiance of the estimates tradition and history, Senator Newman's pettiness over the clippings, Mr Downer's double standards—as they turn out—over attending cricket at Lords and his previous views on hostage situations compared with his current ones, Mr Ruddock's very poor form in appointing only coalition members to be patrons of the Kosovar refugees in Australia and Senator Vanstone's politicising of the portfolio all fit a pattern of sleaziness and pettiness that is unnecessary in most of these things.I am not saying, and I never would say, that there were not acts of pettiness in previous Labor governments. There are always examples of that. What you do is make your own decision about that and try to set higher standards. Most of these ministers refuse to do so, and I think they should be held publicly accountable where they do express double standards or where they do act in a petty and biased manner.13:20:006881Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Firstly, I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to acknowledge your contribution as a senator and the contribution you have made on behalf of the Australian Labor Party and the electors of Queensland, and to wish you all the best. This is your last day here. I note that you will be spending a considerable amount of time in my home state of Tasmania; and so all the best.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Reynolds)—Thank you.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I would like today to deal with some economic issues relating to retirement savings, saving levels in general and the current account deficit. We have now had four budgets delivered by Mr Costello on behalf of the Liberal government, and I would like to go back over some pertinent history relating to the matters that I intend to focus on.Going back to the first Costello budget of 1996, we can look at the forward estimates in respect of what is known as Labor's superannuation co-contribution. Of course, Mr Costello has often referred to this as the l-a-w law tax cuts, but he should suffer the same sort of embarrassment that he seeks to heap on us on this issue—and I will get to that a little later. The forward estimates that Mr Costello in that budget confirmed for the co-contribution, the government contribution to Australian workers' superannuation, provided in 1998-99 for a one per cent contribution, totalling about $1,080 million; in 1999-2000, for $2.4 billion or two per cent; and in 2000-01, just short of $4 billion or three per cent of wages. In that budget statement, on page 14, it says:The government will review the mechanism for the delivery of this contribution to ensure it is a paid in an equitable and effective way. The government reserves the right to deliver this assistance to superannuation or like savings.Of course, this was confirming the promise given by Mr Costello in the lead-up to the 1996 election. As an important side issue, this was the budget which introduced the now infamous superannuation surcharge or tax. It was forecast that in 1997-98 and following years it would raise just over $½ billion and close on $600 million in the year in 1999-2000. Of course, that is money effectively taken from future superannuation or retirement incomes.It is also interesting to note that the budget statement says, `Private consumption growth is expected to moderate to three per cent in 1996-97, an outcome slightly below the average of the past 20 years.' Amongst the forecasts, it indicated that household saving would remain reasonably constant through to 1997 at about 2.5 per cent and that the current account deficit would decrease from $27.6 billion in 1994-95 down to a forecast $20 billion in 1996-97.Moving to the second Costello budget in May of 1997, of course the centrepiece of this budget was the now infamous savings rebate. It was the reshaped superannuation contribu tions that Mr Costello had said that he would deliver. He reshaped this in the form of a savings rebate, which was to apply to superannuation contributions made by employees or the self-employed from post-tax income and/or from net personal income from savings and investment up to an annual cap of $3,000. It went on:These measures will encourage private saving and enhance Australia's retirement income. Australia must increase its national saving to reduce its reliance on borrowings from overseas. There is also a clear need to increase private saving and household saving in particular if we are to achieve a better balance between domestic saving and investment and allow the economy to grow faster.Importantly—and I stress this—with the ageing of our population, there is a need to ensure that Australians save for their own retirement through superannuation. This government is committed to a retirement income policy that provides encouragement for individuals to achieve a higher standard of living in retirement than would be possible from the age pension above.It is also interesting to note that the moneys that were to be put aside in the forward estimates for this savings rebate were only half of the moneys that were contained in the first Costello budget in the forward estimates for the retirement savings superannuation proposal of Labor.Of course, as I have said, this savings rebate was the centrepiece of the Liberal budget of May 1997. It was politically quickly destroyed through criticisms from the head of Treasury, Mr Ted Evans, who in question time at estimates referred to it as being a risky strategy. I have no quotation from him, but he referred to it being very risky. Later on, of course, it was totally destroyed by none other than the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, who declared that he did not want to collect his savings rebate.It was rightly criticised by Labor on a number of grounds. Firstly, it largely rewarded existing saving, which is often short-term, and did not reward longer-term saving. Secondly, it was regressive in that it is higher income earners who have a propensity to save, because they have a higher disposable income. Thirdly, it only delivered half of the moneys that were in the forward estimates as Labor's co-contribution.I now move to the third Costello budget, the 1998 budget. Just to touch on the forecasts, it is here that Treasury started to identify particular problems in respect of household saving and the current account. Household saving in 1997-98 was 3.25 per cent. That followed a forecast in the previous year of 4.5 per cent, and so household saving clearly had declined significantly. The forecast for 1998-99 was 2.75 per cent. Of course, the current account forecast started to change, as well. In 1997-98, the outcome was minus $25 billion, when it had been projected to be only minus $21 billion in the previous budget: 4.5 per cent of gross domestic product, as compared with a forecast of four per cent. Clearly, problems are starting to emerge in the 1998 budget in these areas.Moving to the last Costello budget, the 1999 budget: it appears, when we examine the graph on page 1.16, that national saving—which has been in a long-term downward trend over the past 20 years but which, not insignificantly, had been increasing since 1992—is now starting to dip again. Interestingly, public sector saving is increasing—both state and federal government public sector saving—and Mr Costello is often trumpeting the fact that the budget is in surplus. But, at the same time that public sector saving is increasing, private sector saving has declined in direct proportion to the increase in public saving. So we have, at the moment, a forecast decline in national saving over the next few years.But, of course, we now get a change in the language and the approach of the Treasurer, Mr Costello, and of the head of Treasury, Mr Ted Evans—and, indeed, of the Liberal government more generally. Their comments in the 1999 budget, at paragraph 1-8, are:The increase in the current account deficit reflects private saving and investment decisions rather than government borrowing. With the budget now in surplus, the Commonwealth is no longer drawing on available private saving. Instead it has become a net lender, adding to the pool of saving available to fund private investment. International evidence suggests that the higher public saving tends to raise national saving. When Mr Evans, the head of Treasury, was questioned about these issues at estimates, he appeared to be relatively relaxed and unconcerned, effectively saying, `Well, it is not the government's fault. The public sector is not drawing on savings. If there is a problem, it is a problem of the private sector.'One of the points the Treasurer, Mr Costello, has made is that the Commonwealth budget has moved into substantial surplus. But how has that been achieved? In not unsubstantial part, that saving in the Commonwealth budget debt has been achieved at the cost of direct private saving. If we add together the moneys that were to go into the superannuation contribution together with the so-called superannuation surcharge or tax and then look at the figures, in 1998-99, $1.6 billion, in 1999-2000, $2.9 billion, and in 2000-01, $4.5 billion has effectively been redirected from private superannuation saving back to reduce the government deficit. These are not insubstantial sums. There has been a direct switch from private saving to the Commonwealth budget surplus.What has been the purpose of this? In the short term it has been to assist the government have a budget surplus and, in turn, that is being used to fund its GST package to provide compensation for the introduction of the goods and services tax through tax cuts. These income tax cuts, when they occur on 1 July next year, will have in very significant part been funded by running down future private savings in this country, in reducing future private savings in this country. You would not find an economist who has a knowledge in this area who would predict that the income tax cuts will be transferred into savings. In large part they will not. The income tax cuts will be spent. People would argue that is the choice of individuals, and I do not take exception to that argument. I do point out, however, that a large proportion of those tax cuts has effectively been provided at the cost of long-term retirement savings through superannuation. Of course, it is the long-term impact that is particularly serious.Hundreds of billions of dollars have been switched from superannuation savings for retirement, savings that will be required to assist in underwriting the real increase in the costs of health, accommodation, care and retirement incomes for our ageing population. At the moment, that ageing population as a proportion of our population is just over 12 per cent. It will almost double by the year 2050 to close on 22 per cent. That is why it is so imperative we have longer-term retirement income savings. All of this is allegedly in the name of real tax reform—the GST. It has been traded off for real long-term retirement income security to sustain our ageing population, in order to at least underwrite, in significant part, highly questionable tax reform. The Liberal government and its ministers are fond of shrouding these changes with the rhetoric of choice. But I put to the Senate: what choices will our population have in 25 or 30 years if they have a much reduced income to live on and at the same time have rapidly increasing costs? This is a real short-term approach.I have referred to Treasury's relaxed and blithe acceptance of this particular problem. But I do note that Mr Macfarlane, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, in his Melbourne statement to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, did at least allude to the problems we have with private saving in this country. He outlined three particular problems. He said:The first possible problem is if inadequate household saving persists it could mean inadequate provision for retirement. This, in turn, would put increased demands on future taxpayers. This is an issue of intergenerational equity. I do not want to suggest that this is not a problem—it may well be a big one—Well, I would submit to the Senate we know it is going to be a big problem. And he went on:but the solution to it would be found in improvements to our policies regarding retirement income.Unfortunately, not many in the media picked this up. This is quite a clear and direct criticism of the Liberal government's approach to retirement incomes. He then went on to speak of the problems of saving and the current account deficit. Then he went on thirdly to the problem of indebtedness in respect of the household sector.We need to be very careful about the current account deficit—it is now touching six per cent of gross domestic product—because our level of private saving is almost at zero. Whilst Treasury, the Treasurer and this government appear to be very relaxed about this as an economic issue in the short term, and certainly do not particularly care in the long term in terms of retirement incomes, what is the outcome of a current account deficit that cannot be funded by savings in Australia?A number of potential problems are emerging. Firstly, there is the problem that one day the international money markets will look at Australia's current account debt and say that it is not sustainable. If it continues to grow worse—Australia has low declining levels of national saving, almost zero private saving, and despite public saving which is being run down to fund the bribes to get the Australian community to accept a GST—they may well say that they are not going to provide the capital anymore to underpin Australia's current account deficit. That will cause significant economic dislocation. We have only got to look at the problems in Asia to see some of the potential problems that can emerge.Secondly, whilst we can borrow overseas to fund our current account deficit—and we clearly are at the present time—effectively that means a transfer of Australia's economic sovereignty. It means an increase in the net level of the Australian economy by companies that are located overseas and we gradually lose control of our economic destiny.Thirdly, it means that we pay a premium for this imported capital. These are the sorts of potential problems that could emerge. We need to look very closely at the United States; their private savings level is now negative. I am pleased to note that there have been a number of articles by journalists Henderson, McGuire and Price and in the Financial Review by Mr Sean Aylmer on these particular issues. The implications are very serious. (Time expired)13:40:006884Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I want to add my good wishes to those colleagues who will be leaving this place tonight and whose terms expire at midnight when they turn into pumpkins or something like that. Many praiseworthy words have been said over the last couple of days about each of our colleagues. On a personal note, I just wanted to add a couple of observations about them. I will remember Bill O'Chee because, as the Chair of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, he has made a most distinguished contribution to this place. Since I have been added to that committee and am about to assume what in very many ways are very big shoes—despite Senator O'Chee's small stature, he is very big when it comes to stature in regulations and ordinances—as the incoming chair of that committee, I am very much obliged to him for his generosity in filling me in on some of the bits and pieces that are necessary.I turn now to David MacGibbon. I sat next to David in the chamber for some time and I am sure he will not mind me referring to him as an old dog who taught a new dog some tricks—certainly, some new tricks. I learned more about defence than I could have ever expected I would know and he personally equipped me to make a contribution to a Public Accounts and Audit inquiry into the Collins class submarine.Sandy Macdonald, of course, is perhaps one of our most urbane and gregarious senators. I very much enjoyed his company on the odd occasion when we have been travelling backwards and forwards from Sydney. You will all be sorely missed.Margaret Reynolds has had a very long and most distinguished career in this place. She has a particular commitment to women that I think will be well appreciated for many years beyond her leaving. No-one could doubt that Dee Margetts has made a sincere and sustained contribution according to her beliefs to this place. And Mal Colston, despite more recent public criticism, is still respected by his colleagues for the many years of work that he has put in. I know that some of that work was also as a distinguished Chair of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which is, in fact, the oldest Senate committee. Our thoughts will be with you all as you leave this place tonight.As my contribution to the appropriations debate I want to spend just a few minutes giving consideration to what has been—and indeed still is—a contentious issue, that is, Australia's refugee and humanitarian program. The topic of refugees points up a fracture in the Australian psyche about refugees. On the one hand, we are moved to compassion and even tears at the plight of the Kosovar refugees. I can attest to this personally because I represented the minister, Mr Ruddock, on one occasion to welcome a recent plane load of refugees. In reply to Senator Ray's earlier comment about the lack of bipartisan contribution in this process, I was also accompanied on that occasion by Mr Daryl Melham, the member for Banks. It was most certainly a bipartisan occasion. This was out at East Hills.It was a very sobering occasion. Lasting impressions were of the haunted faces, the look of despair and the knowledge that the lives of these people had been shattered by war and, above all, the triumph of spirit and the great cheer that went up when I said through an interpreter that the war was coming to an end and that they would soon be going home. Despite one or two disaffected people, the vast majority are grateful for the safe haven and hospitality that Australians have offered. In my view, it has been, at least to date, a most effective response to a humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions.We might contrast this with the response to the boat people, those illegal immigrants who are often the victims of people smugglers, who have come to Australia in increasing waves and who are detained on arrival or on interception in Australian waters. The first observation that must be made is that not all illegal immigrants coming to Australia have the same circumstances. To start with, many more come by air than by boat.I do not think anyone doubts that the economic conditions from which the poorest of these illegal immigrants flee are severe. On the other hand, the recent thwarting of a load of some 2,000 Somalis who had paid some $3,500 just for the chance to join in the passage to a new life suggests more relative wealth. The average amount for such a jour ney is in the order of $A26,000, which must be an absolute fortune for most. We all would know that economic hardship, of itself, is not an eligible criterion on which to establish refugee status under the convention, and that makes the whole business of people trafficking not only reprehensible but particularly heartless and exploitative. To hold out to people in those conditions the promise of being able to deliver is particularly harsh.According to the International Organisation for Migration, people trafficking is now a major global scam, pulling in an amount of the order of $US7 billion—$A10.6 billion—and handling four million people a year. It is a staggering number world wide. What is alarming, at least for Australia, is that Australia, the United States and Canada are desirable and targeted destinations. The reason the increasing number of illegal immigrants requires a strategic response is not only that their personal safety is put at risk, usually in rusty, unseaworthy boats, but that trafficking poses a threat to Australia's security, public health and quarantine—with our $13 billion agriculture industry at stake—and may increase drug smuggling and other criminal operations.In short, it must be said that illegal immigration and an appropriate response to it raise serious political and economic questions. At present, each illegal arrival in Australia costs some $50,000 just in processing costs, and this does not include the cost of pursuing matters through the court. This chamber is in the course of debating measures designed to limit judicial review in such cases and I do not propose to comment about that any further, but it does require a response and a most effective approach to intervening in what has become a national problem. We must not underestimate the challenge once illegals are on the seas or in the air. With some 37,000 kilometres of coastline to survey, it is a difficult problem. Even if illegal immigrants have no hope of remaining permanently, how they are treated in Australia and how they are identified and returned to their country of origin depends on a speedy and a fair process that also minimises abuse of the process. We all would acknowledge that there have been some serious abuses of the process.A couple of days ago the Prime Minister and the minister announced some significant measures, with the expenditure of some $124 million over four years, to step up the fight against illegal immigration, to provide much more surveillance and, most importantly, to look at Australia's capacity to detect and deter illegal immigration from source and transit countries. Australia has a well-run immigration program and it would be a great pity if that program were to be judged by anomalies instead of what is in the national interest.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! The allotted time for debate on these bills having expired, I put the question that the bills be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question is that the bills be now read a third time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a third time.Sitting suspended from 1.50 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice688668866886Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, my question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain the rationale for exempting all over 65-year-olds from penalty premiums under the lifetime health cover proposal yet imposing a penalty on women who are already in receipt of the age or widow's pension and are still less than 65 years of age?6886Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—That is a very good question. It is always interesting to have the Labor Party questioning us on private health insurance when they were the ones who tried to destroy it. They deliberately set out to destroy the private insurance system of this country. It is interesting that premium increases averaged 7½ per cent for the 13 years that the Labor Party were in power. As you will know from the changes that we have brought in, they are now, despite the increases but with the rebate and even with the recent changes, down to about 1.6 per cent.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—So you can't answer the question?VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner, I am happy to answer the question. It is just that by way of preamble I should put the answer to the question in context. It is the design of the government and the government's changes to the health insurance program not only to retain the present people in it but also to give an incentive for people to take out private health insurance. The underlying principle is that there should be freedom of choice for people.The generic answer to Senator Crowley's question is that if there are people who appear to be affected by the changes that are being brought in, particularly in relation to lifetime health cover, then it is up to those people to determine whether they retain their private health insurance or not. It is called freedom of choice. They may retain it, if they so desire, or not. It is entirely up to the individual to decide whether they are affected by the changes that are being brought in and to then make their own determination as to whether they take out private health insurance or not.They have the alternative of relying on the public hospital system, which has been run down progressively by the effects of the Labor Party's policies. They did not seem to understand at the time that the more people who were taken out of private health insurance, the greater the effect it had on the public hospital system. It is entirely up to what the individual determines. It is called freedom of choice.6886Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, we are not talking about freedom of choice; we are talking about the design of your system that has got disincentives. If you could have another shot at answering the first question—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Any shot.ZF4Senator CROWLEY—Yes, any answer. Thank you, Senator Faulkner. If a woman of less than 65 years of age has an older husband who is exempt, she will pay an additional 35 per cent on her premiums. If her husband subsequently dies, she will pay an additional 70 per cent. How can this be an incentive to join an insurance fund?6887Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Again it comes back to the basic premise. It is entirely up to the individuals. There are always disincentives. There are disincentives if you are young and you are healthy. That is a disincentive to take out private health insurance. Why wouldn't one self-insure? In the cases quoted by Senator Crowley, those particular people could self-insure.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—An age pensioner can self-insure?VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Crowley does not realise that there are a large number of people who are pensioners who take out private health insurance because they value freedom of choice, they value the freedom to go into a private hospital if they wish and they value the choice of the doctor who is looking after them. That is unlike the Labor Party's policy, which is to have no choice but to go to a public hospital and be under the care of the hospital. That is what they propose and what was their health system. Where is their policy? (Time expired)68876887Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—Madam President, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. What actions has the Howard government taken to improve the living standards of all Australians? With the tax reform package now through the Senate, will the minister inform the Senate of what additional reforms are planned to further grow the economy and to create employment opportunities?6887Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I thank Senator Ferguson for that important question. I did note this morning Mr Beazley announcing in the press that the Labor Party are going to start to develop policies. It is good news. It has taken nearly four years of just blocking, and now they are going to start to develop policies. In another year or so, perhaps there will be a policy debate in the Australian community and it will no longer be a one-sided debate, which is what it has been for the last four years.It is good to be part of a government which not only has the policies but is also implementing them. I am pleased that during this session we have been able to put through a federal budget in surplus again for the third year in a row. That is a remarkable achievement when you compare it with the record of Labor—deficit after deficit. It was a budget which delivered the promises we made to the Australian people at the last election. I am pleased that we have been able to weather the worst of the Asian economic crisis with strong economic growth, strong business and consumer confidence, and positive signs for improvement in the jobs market.As all Australians know, the new tax system, passed during the course of this session, will provide for Australians an extra $12 billion in personal income tax cuts. Twelve billion dollars will be given back to Australian taxpayers from the reform passed in this session. It will, in addition, boost our export earnings—something that Senator Cook would applaud, no doubt. It will provide real benefits in particular to rural and regional Australia in terms of lower transport costs, which is critically important.The second part-sale of Telstra will give Australians a new opportunity to buy shares in a great Australian company, and it will enable us to pay off more of Labor's debt. It will also enable us to invest in a social bonus of about $1 billion. That will deliver better communication services to rural and regional Australia and it will enable us to build on the environmental program of the Natural Heritage Trust, with an extra $250 million to invest in Australia's natural resource base—something which all Australians would no doubt applaud. It certainly has been a record of reform and achievement. Madam President, you know of the reforms in the financial sector that have gone through in this session, the better targeting of welfare assistance and the stepping up of the fight against drugs in our community— the Howard government has it across the board. But that is not the end. The programs are there for further reforms. The next big challenge is business tax reform, and we will be marching on with that reform. We will bring it into this chamber and we will put Labor to the test again. We will go ahead with the Regional Forest Agreement legislation. We will see what Labor does. Is Labor going to vote to wreck the RFA legislation as it has promised? Is Labor going to vote against resource security as it has promised?FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Why don't you bring it in and find out?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Murphy, stop shouting.BH4Senator HILL—Is Senator Murphy going to go back to Tasmania and explain how he wrecked the RFA legislation? It will be interesting. We will vote for more jobs. The unfair dismissal legislation will come back to the chamber, and we will see how Labor votes on the issue of jobs in that debate. We will bring back legislation to retain youth wages. This is a government that has achieved a great deal, but there are still many challenges ahead and we will continue with the program. We will continue to put Labor to the test and, hopefully, in 12 months time—for the first time in a long time—we will start to get a policy debate. (Time expired)68886888Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister explain why the government has wasted a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money on a Productivity Commission inquiry into its policy of coalescence in aged care, only to ignore the inquiry's report? Are Aged Care Australia, the Australian Nursing Homes and Extended Care Association and the Productivity Commission all wrong when they claim that the government policy will result in a reduction in the quality of care delivered to over 20,000 nursing home residents in Victoria and Tasmania? Minister, why won't the government do something to fix the problem?6888Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The simple answer to the question is that it is because of the terrible problems that we inherited from the Labor Party. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction, we are considering the Productivity Commission's report. So it is not that it has been ignored. The facts are on the board: in 1995-96 the Labor government spent $2½ billion on residential aged care across Australia. The outlay budgeted for 1999-2000 is $3½ billion. That is an increase of 42 per cent since the coalition was elected to government in 1996.Under the current arrangements, all states and territories will receive more funding than they did under Labor's old system, both now and in the future. So this allegation that somehow there are cuts is, frankly, untrue. I will repeat that because Senator Evans does not seem to be able to take this in: under the current arrangements, all states and territories will receive more funding than they did under Labor's old system, both new and into the future. The Productivity Commission also found no evidence whatsoever of a funding crisis in the residential aged care industry. So once again we get this beat-up of the straw man that is this crisis that is not occurring.With regard to the Productivity Commission report, the government is in the process of consulting with consumer and industry representatives prior to a whole of government decision on the recommendations and the way ahead. The fundamental thing is that, in the meantime, all states—Victoria and Tasmania included—will receive an increase in funding on 1 July.6888Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not think the minister seems to understand the issue. This problem is a result of his aged care reform package and a Productivity Commission inquiry commissioned by the Treasurer, which found that the government's proposal was basically flawed. Minister, I want to know why you are not doing anything to prevent the reduction in funding to Victorian and Tasmanian nursing home providers from tomorrow when the Productivity Commission told you you ought to intervene and put a halt to your coalescence proposal. Why won't you do something to act on the basis of the report that you said was necessary? Why won't you do something to protect Victorian and Tasmanian residents in aged care homes, as the Productivity Commission has urged you to do?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans, your question should be directed to the chair, not across the chamber to the minister.6889Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Either Senator Evans is deaf or he does not want to hear, or he does not understand the previous answer. I will read again the last sentence in the brief that I read before: in the meantime, all states will receive an increase in funding on 1 July. Contrast that with funding when the Labor Party was in power. They ran down residential care and withdrew $1½ billion, and they left us with 10,000 residential places short of their own benchmark. So for Senator Evans to come in and imply that nothing is being done and that we are not listening to the Productivity Commission, is totally false.68896889Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—Madam President, my question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. Given the importance of the mining industry to the Australian economy, how will the new tax package help this industry increase production and create more jobs?6889Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—As Senator Crane, a proud Western Australian, would know, the mining sector is absolutely vital to our economic wellbeing. In 1997-98 the minerals sector added $8.6 billion to our total national wealth. Australia has more of its wealth in mineral, oil and gas assets than all bar one of the world's wealthiest countries. It generates 20 per cent of all investment and over a third of our merchandise exports. It is our biggest export earner.It is imperative that we ensure the mining sector can operate profitably and successfully. That means reducing impediments to its competitiveness, particularly when commodity prices are at an all-time low. That is why we had to fix Labor's Native Title Act: to give miners more secure land access. And that is why we campaigned so hard for significant tax reform—because the current tax system is a real impediment to the competitiveness of the mining sector. It saddles our mineral exports with the embedded cost of the wholesale sales tax, which we are completely abolishing. On top of that, the slashing of diesel fuel costs for on-road use in regional Australia and for rail transport will deliver big cost savings to this industry. We are also extending the FBT exemption for remote area housing for mining. All up, the tax package will save this vital mining sector about $3,000 million every year.There have been independent studies which suggest that the increase in profitability for the mining sector as a result of our reforms will be 7.6 per cent, and two other studies have found that the output in the mining sector will increase by seven to eight per cent, or around $1½ billion, as a result of our tax reforms. Chris Murphy, the economic modeller, has assessed that employment in this industry will increase by 7,000 people as a result of our reforms. So our tax package means more jobs, more output and more profitability for our biggest export earner. This completely contrasts, of course, with what the Labor Party is offering the mining sector. The Labor Party completely opposed all these tax reforms, which means there are 7,000 jobs which Labor is opposed to.With respect to native title, the federal opposition completely opposed every effort we made to find a sensible balance between the land access needs of miners and the rights of indigenous people. Around the states, the Labor Party, particularly in Western Australia, is undermining every effort we have made to bring some sense to native title processes.Labor also completely opposed our industrial relations reforms, which have been critical to ensuring that the minerals industry can maintain its international competitiveness. Labor's three-mines uranium policy was widely regarded as a complete joke, but a very expensive joke. Access Economics have estimated that it cost Australia $5 billion in lost export income between 1985 and 1995.Labor has opposed virtually every single policy reform that helps our minerals industry create jobs and wealth for Australia. Labor has shown, by its actions, that it simply does not care about this vital industry or the men and women of Australia who work in it. We do care, and our tax reforms are tremendous news for this vital industry.68906890Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the polling research conducted by TQA Associates for the Private Hospitals Association which found that large gap payments have destroyed the credibility of private health insurance funds? Is he aware that the report concluded that `people don't want private health insurance at any price' and that `there was widespread consumer satisfaction with the public hospital system'? Will the government now end its fixation with subsidising private health insurance and make sure the industry gets its act together to eliminate gap payments?6890Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Forshaw may be surprised to hear that the government does support the public hospital system. There is no criticism of the public hospital system, the great work that they are doing, or the people who work within the public hospital system. Equally, the government supports the private hospital system and the people who work within that system. The answer to the continuing problems in health care in this country is to have a viable sector on both sides. We are purposely trying to help people take out private health insurance—as opposed to the Labor Party, which purposely tried to run down and destroy the private health insurance system. The basic premise of Senator Forshaw's question, that there is criticism of the public hospital system—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What are you talking about?VW4Senator HERRON—Madam President, Senator Forshaw asked about government policy in relation to the TQA assessment. If Senator Forshaw had read that report, he would know what I am talking about.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Have you read the report?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left should cease interjecting. Senator Herron has the call to deal with this question.VW4Senator HERRON—The reality is that the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance has made health insurance more affordable, and we have seen that demonstrated. The rebate reduces the cost of private health insurance premiums by 30 per cent, regardless of a person's income, the type of membership—hospital, ancillary or combined—or the level of cover. Addressing gap fees is one of the most difficult problems that the government is addressing. I agree with some of Senator Forshaw's questions, because it is reality. Even the Labor Party understands that, and I welcome Senator Forshaw's keen interest in retaining private health insurance in this country. At the present, one of the problems is that medical providers have largely refused to enter into price agreements with funds or hospitals because of the perception that this represents the first step in a shift towards American-style managed care. Recent negotiations have been promising, but they have been held up by the current dispute within the AMA. Eventually, I am sure, that will be resolved.Senator Forshaw interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—There are other initiatives to address these gaps—and Senator Forshaw, if he was listening rather than calling out across the chamber, would hear what they are. They include ongoing promotion of simplified billing and informed financial consent—including work with the Health Insurance Commission to enable a broader application of electronic commerce—and recent changes to legislation which will allow health funds to cover gaps for pharmaceutical benefits and schedule medicines dispensed in hospitals.The government has also committed funds to supporting a number of coordinated care trials in the private health sector so that privately insured people can also benefit from programs which can help people stay out of hospital and continue to live independently at home. Early discharge trials are in place to test alternative models of providing in-hospital care that will be more appropriate and cost effective. Trial evaluations are expected to be completed early in the year 2000.The rebate was introduced to arrest the decline in private health insurance participation rates. The official figures for the March 1999 quarter, released on 20 May, show an increase in coverage of 0.2 per cent from the previous quarter. That is the first increase in coverage for more than a decade. At the end of the March quarter, 30.3 per cent of the population were covered by private health insurance, and that is the first upturn we have seen in many years.68916891Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the Jabiluka uranium mine, and I ask the minister: is there anything which would convince the government that the Jabiluka uranium mine should be stopped? If so, what should that be? For instance, would the impact on cultural values be enough to stop this mine?6891Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The trick must be in the tail, which I have not heard yet. As the honourable senator knows, this application went through almost three years of rigorous assessment to the highest of standards. The findings were that the mine could be conducted in both an environmentally and culturally safe way. On that basis approvals were given, and the decline has already been constructed. It will enable the resource to be mined and processed as a flow-on from the huge Ranger mine, which has been up there for about 18 years—a mine that the Australian Labor Party did not find offensive in any way. Certainly they did not suggest in their 13 years of government that the Ranger mine would put the national park in any jeopardy. As I said, we do have the comfort of the fact that Ranger also has been mined in an environmentally and culturally safe way for some 18 years, which gives us considerable confidence as to the validity of the previous assessments on Jabiluka.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Different mine, different place. This is totally irrelevant.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, you are out of order.BH4Senator HILL—The answer to the question, therefore, is that approvals have been given, the decline has been constructed and the ore body in due course will be mined. The benefits that flow from that are considerable wealth, direct financial benefits to the indigenous communities in the region and jobs for more Australians. Senator Cook would applaud a contribution to our balance of payments problems and a contribution to meeting the demand for uranium from those countries that use uranium as their principal fuel source for power, in particular France. The benefits that are flowing from this development are significant. As I said, it is environmentally and culturally safe and this government has given the required approvals.6891Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. I ask: isn't it the case that this mine will rip apart a culture, break the connection between the Mirra people and the places that are part of their spirituality, and have a significant effect on the world heritage values of Kakadu? Again I ask the minister: will you please stop the Jabiluka uranium mine?6891Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The honourable senator knows that the Mirra people agreed in writing to this mine in the 1980s. The honourable senator will also know that in the early 1990s they came down to Canberra and lobbied the Labor government for this mine to go ahead.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—What a deceiver you are.BH4Senator HILL—That is not deceiving anyone; that is a matter of fact. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot enter into a contract for the development of the mine, as the Mirra people did, and then say that you have changed your mind and you no longer wish it to go ahead. It is the same obligation that is on all Australians. The distinction which Senator Allison should be aware of is that in this instance the indigenous people have to agree to the mine. The point is, they have agreed to the mine—and in that way they have an added benefit that the rest of Australia does not have. But the problem is, they did agree to it.68926892McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that, as of tomorrow, people in WA, 90 per cent of whom will be pensioners, will be required to pay fees for home and community care services that could total $80 to $100 a month? Can the minister confirm that nationally the government expects user-pays fees for HACC services to raise 20 per cent of the cost of these services? Is the minister aware that, on the basis of HACC funding in the budget, the 20 per cent target represents $175 million per year? How can the minister justify raking back $175 million from some of the most financially disadvantaged in society for services they cannot live without?6892Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I have always been careful of accepting statements made by the opposition in relation to HACC, in particular in relation to aged care. While not accepting the statements made, the government is honouring its 1996 commitment to maintain a strong rate of growth in the HACC program. The increase of five per cent, or $24 million, in Commonwealth funding for the year is consistent with this aim. The level of funding reflects the government's 1996 decision on HACC funding, which recognised the importance of consumers taking greater responsibility for the cost of their care and services.Through the implementation of this initiative, states and territories have the opportunity to adjust their fees so that user charges are applied consistently and fairly in all jurisdictions and to ensure additional funds are available to expand services for those with the greatest need. The fees approach ensures that people who are unable to pay are not denied services, and it protects people on low incomes who require a large number of services.Victoria has already successfully implemented a HACC fees policy which increased available HACC funds in that state by around 20 per cent over and above what is provided by the Commonwealth and state governments. As I said, the government promised to maintain the six per cent real growth in the HACC program, and it is consistent with that that the Commonwealth initiatives have been implemented.The impact of this initiative on different states and territories has been mixed. The level of user charges collected prior to 1995-96 in the HACC program varied greatly between the states. In 1992-93 it was estimated that nationally an amount equivalent to 10 per cent of Commonwealth and state HACC program expenditure was collected in fees with different states' levels as follows: Victoria, 18 per cent; Queensland, 17 per cent; ACT, 10 per cent; New South Wales, eight per cent; Western Australia, six per cent; Northern Territory, six per cent; South Australia, five per cent; and Tasmania, two per cent. I think that will explain the background to Senator McKiernan's question. Tasmania is implementing a policy to actively increase the rate of fees collection, although acquittal information concerning the level of the increases is not yet available. The rate of fees collection in Victoria is estimated at between 18 and 20 per cent. The New South Wales Minister for Ageing and Minister for Disability Services has sought assurances that the budget initiative, which has reduced the rate of growth of government funding, not apply in 1999-2000 when the target of 20 per cent collection would otherwise be assumed to be achieved. It does vary from state to state. It is a Commonwealth-state responsibility and, where the effect varies between states, it is consistent with the state intervention.6892McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for the useful background information, and in doing so I note he did not answer the specifics of the question. I was referring to my constituents in Western Australia and my first question was: is the minister aware that, as of tomorrow, people in WA—90 per cent of whom will be pensioners—will be required to pay fees for home and community care services that could total $80 to $100 per month? That is significant for my constituents, Minister. Further, won't the new HACC fees faced by pensioners in Western Australia from tomorrow absorb all of the compensation offered under the tax package?6893Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It is not true, in relation to the tax package, that those fees will be absorbed by the increases that Senator McKiernan talks about. Under the new tax system, in relation to pensioners for example, the program will result in pensioners being more than compensated. For example, all nursing home and hostel residents will be fully and permanently protected from fee increases following the government's four per cent compensation package in July 2000. People on the HACC program will also be more than compensated because a lot of those charges will be GST free. You cannot qualify a percentage increase when it is a joint Commonwealth-state agreement and where the states have primary responsibility for those fees.68936893Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, my final question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Senator Hill. In each of the last two years what volumes of whole logs have been exported from Western Australia? Does the minister expect the export of whole logs to increase now that controls of the export of unprocessed wood from WA has been lifted?6893Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for her question. We all know her interest in forests and we wish her well in her retirement and hope that she might pursue the good management of Western Australian forests in her spare time. It also gives me an opportunity to recognise again the importance of the Regional Forest Agreement in Western Australia, which no doubt the honourable senator will applaud. It is an agreement which provides for a world-class reserve system. It is comprehensive, adequate and representative and provides resource security in both an ecologically sustainable way and an economically sustainable way. It is a win-win outcome, good for the economy and jobs within the forest industry and good for the environment as well.Specifically in answer to the question that Senator Margetts asked, I am advised that in each of the last two years no licences were issued for the export of hardwood whole logs from Western Australia, other than for a small amount of sandalwood. One licence was issued during this period for the export of soft wood, but I am not aware of what volumes may have been exported under this licence. I would expect that exports of hardwood whole logs will be determined in future by the market demand for such a resource. However, as the honourable senator knows, this government is an enthusiastic supporter of value adding and, in relation to the Western Australian timber industry, through the RFA, the $20 million contribution from the Commonwealth will be for the RFA industry development package which will assist and promote increased value adding in the industry—something that I would also think the honourable senator will applaud.Lastly, I would invite her—she will not be here but she will no doubt have some spiritual influence on the ALP—to urge the ALP to support the government's RFA legislation. The RFA gives 20 years of resource security, which is good for the industry. But the Labor Party is determined to wreck the additional level of security the government offers through Commonwealth based legislation. The Labor Party is determined to have passed an amendment which will destroy the sovereign capacity of the federal government to negotiate resource security agreements with the states.Senator O'Brien interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Senator O'Brien is a leader in wanting to destroy resource security in the forest industry, and Senator Murphy ought to stand up to him and say, `Tasmania wants resource security in the forest industry.' It is time they had a policy.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber on both sides. Senators will come to order.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Madam President, I rise on a point of order on the question of relevance. In his fury, should Senator Hill be drawn to the fact that the WA government is actually falling apart with regard to the RFA legislation?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BH4Senator HILL—The WA RFA will give 20 years of security to the industry. If the Labor Party in this place would support our RFA legislation, there would be another level of security. Senator Murphy ought to stand up for resource security in the industry.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Why don't you bring it on for debate?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Murphy, stop shouting.BH4Senator HILL—He ought to take Senator O'Brien aside and give him a talk about how important it is.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Bring it on. It's your decision.BH4Senator HILL—The ALP is determined to destroy this industry, and that is an embarrassment.Senator Murphy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Murphy, are you aware of the provisions of standing order 203? I suggest you read it.6894Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I had no idea what passions that question would release. Senator Hill indicated that there have been no exports of hardwood in the last couple of years, but without any export controls that does not indicate what will happen in the future. What does that mean for the government's commitment to value adding and employment in the industry when we all know that exporting hardwood whole logs, or whole logs of any sort, is job destroying? I indicate to the minister that, if I do find myself under the pyramid contemplating my navel with the crystals in my hand, I will be using my spiritual influence to influence the ALP in the other direction, not to support the RFA legislation.6894Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is disappointing, I have to say, because the Labor Party need their backbone stiffened on this one. They are divided. They do not know which way to go. They have Senator O'Brien pulling away from job security. They have Senator Murphy pulling in a different direction. All they need to say to us, perhaps through their leader, is, `We will support the government's RFA legislation.' I am sorry to embarrass Senator Faulkner in this way. He knows a lot about the forest industry. We all remember the mess he got into when he was environment minister. Support the government's RFA legislation is all the ALP need to do. Exporting logs is not job destroying—it can actually create jobs—but value added is better still. This government therefore is investing in value adding in the forest industry and will continue to invest for that objective.68946894Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron. I ask the minister whether he can explain why, in answer to questions about the follow-up stage of the stolen generations inquiry at the recent estimates and in response to a suggestion that he had snubbed Sir Ronald Wilson by refusing to meet with him, he said, `I certainly met with Sir Ronald Wilson'? Further, in response to the same questions in the Senate on 26 May this year, he said, `I certainly met with Sir Ronald Wilson. We certainly discussed the implementation of the report or where it should go.' Yet, in an answer to a question taken on notice at those estimates hearings the minister has stated in writing that he has `not met with Sir Ronald or other members of HREOC in relation to the follow-up project'.6894Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—There is a very simple answer to that question posed by Senator Bolkus. If Senator Bolkus had read the whole of the transcript of the estimates report, he would have seen that I said at the time, `I will check the dates.' I said, `I certainly met with Sir Ronald Wilson.' I said that I did met with him; I discussed the report; I was not certain of the dates; I said I would get back to Senator Bolkus about the dates of the meetings.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What?VW4Senator HERRON—As a result, Senator Faulkner, of the estimates report. I was not sure of the dates on which I met Sir Ronald Wilson.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You've had plenty of time to get back.VW4Senator HERRON—Well, we have got back, Senator Carr; and that is why Senator Bolkus is asking the question today.6895Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the restated assurance by the minister, I ask him again: why has he recently provided the estimates committee with the answer in writing that he has not met with Sir Ronald Wilson or other members of HREOC in relation to the follow-up report? Minister, isn't it a fact that there is only one explanation for your inconsistent answers, and that is that you have deliberately misled the Senate on two occasions in order to conceal your failure to meet your responsibilities on this, one of the most fundamental issues, the burden of which is still being met by most indigenous families in this country?6895Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—As I have explained, I said that I did meet with Sir Ronald Wilson—no question that I did. I met with Sir Ronald Wilson when he came to see me about the report.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You said you didn't.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Bolkus then asked in the estimates when that occurred. I said that I did not recall what the dates were, that I would get back to him with the dates. The question that was then asked was: `Did I discuss the implementation of his report?' I said that I would reply in writing because I could not recall the dates; that I could not recall what occurred at the time. It is a very important question that Senator Bolkus has asked and, at the end of question time, I will supply a supplementary answer.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Oh! And an apology.VW4Senator HERRON—If Senator Bolkus is kind enough to ask me another question because we have run out of time, I would be happy to do that.68956895Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the Senate how the government's new tax plan will further assist small business? What progress is the government making in its efforts to improve Australia's economic fundamentals and to improve living standards for all Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals, and is the government giving these any serious consideration?6895Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Our new tax system will be a huge boost for small business. It will mean that they will be able to get a GST credit for all their purchases—something like a $10 billion windfall for business on business to business transactions. A single comprehensive pay-as-you-go taxation system with one single return required to be submitted rather than all of those other complicated requirements will be a huge advance. It is hard to imagine why anyone in their right mind could oppose the policy approach. But of course they have.So what is the alternative on offer? Of course, Mr Beazley is now saying that those interested in the position of party president have to come up with formulating policy, that that is their job. I would have thought that that was the job of the Leader of the Opposition. After all, Barry Jones has been there for about five years, making policy suggestions until they come out his ears, but no-one takes any notice of him; although I noticed the other day he said on the last campaign near Sydney he flew to his destination in a Saab, was picked up in a Volvo, drank from an Orrefors glass and used some flash Swedish camera. Maybe that is his idea of a good time in the workers' party. To his credit he has at least tried to deal with policy issues. Unfortunately, of course, nobody goes to Mr Beazley any more. In a recent Australian we find that suddenly Mr Simon Crean is regarded as being a bit more approachable: `Mr Beazley is in the bunker; he can't be found.'If we look at where we are in terms of alternative policy approaches, what we have is this. The Labor Party talked about policy before the last election—they had three years to talk about it. Then during the campaign Mr Beazley said, `When I actually get into power, I'll put forward a set of policies.' That was six or eight months ago. What he said after the election was, `We've got to do a ground up review'—that was months ago. That is what we are going through at the moment. Then he set up six policy review committees, not to develop good and effective policy but to develop vote winning policies—the ALP is only interested in its own self-interest.Now he has launched an intensive program of policy development and what are we going to begin with? A series of seminars. So the book clubs are being replaced by debating societies. What we are going to find is that we will have policy quality circles where they will all come together, and it will be sponsored by the ACTU—and of course they will pay very handsomely for the privilege of attending. There will be three days hand-wringing to start with, so that people can express their concerns about inequality and the desire for security in relation to unemployment. Hands up all those who are against a desire for security? It should not take long, but I am sure it will because they will need to string this sort of nonsense out for another 12 months or so. They probably have the trade union working group working on the terms of reference for these seminars right now.We could set up a royal commission. If they really want an effective way of ensuring that people are forced to give them quality policy ideas, maybe we could compel witnesses to attend. It is very hard to see how this sort of mickey mouse nonsense—substitutes for policy—is going to make any difference at all. Mr Beazley was telling his MPs in caucus yesterday that they have to get out and sell the policy. I thought that was the job for the Leader of the Opposition. The trouble is, of course, you cannot sell them. You really cannot even give them away. They tried at the last election, and what did Mr Beazley say? He said, `We had a whole range of policies. The trouble was no-one wanted to talk about anything else but tax.' That is the very sort of thing that Mr Della Bosca said they did not want to talk about. They should have been told about the alternative. But of course, as soon as you put your hand up and talked about Toorak tractors and capital gains tax, of course they ran a million miles. It is really a hopeless situation. The only alternative is to get fair dinkum about policies. (Time expired)68966896Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the budget provided for no increase in the funding for aged care advocacy services? Is the minister aware that these services currently hold a total budget of $1.719 million which represents about 0.4 per cent of the aged care budget? Given the increasing numbers of people receiving aged care, how can the government justify freezing the budgets of organisations which represent their interests? Can the minister explain how the interests of aged care recipients are to be protected when the budget allocated less than $5 a year to provide them with advocacy services?6896Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Denman for her question. Advocacy services are funded to provided information and support for residents and potential residents of residential aged care facilities. Advocacy services are funded on an annual basis. The level of funding is based on submissions by services and is linked to the size of the client population in the region to be covered. Annual funding using grant agreements allows the department to elect not to renew funding for any organisation for the following year, and this decision is at the department's discretion. In considering the distribution of funds for the Residential Aged Care Advocacy Program for the forthcoming 1999-2000 financial year, the department looked at the distribution of funds nationally and the relative proportions of program funding which have been attributed to client services and administrative costs. Consideration of the submissions by the department highlighted the inequities in the distribution of advocacy funds nationally with the Northern Territory, for example, receiving a disproportionately high level of funds compared with any other area on a population basis. So a restructure of funding was proposed by the department. It is proposed, for example, in the Northern Territory that a new service will be established which will combine aged care advocacy with the disability advocacy service. It varies from state to state and between the territories. A new program has been initiated. In relation to the other part of Senator Denman's question, if there is any further information that I can provide from the minister, I shall do so.6897Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Yes, I would like further information, if the minister has it. How can you justify a surplus of $5 billion when you do not even provide for indexation of the funding of aged care advocacy services?6897Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—There are always competing demands. I think the justification is that there are limited funds. We inherited a $10½ billion deficit when we came into government. We brought the budget back into surplus. We have an increasing ageing population. The demand is increasing and there has to be a decision made about the proportion of funding that goes to respective services. The department has made the decision that that should be varied from state to state. As I mentioned previously to Senator Denman, if there is any further information which the minister can provide, I will be happy to approach her with that information.68976897Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Alston. I ask the minister: is he aware that, in answering my question about the dairy industry on Monday, he made a serious mistake which I now give him the opportunity to correct? Does the minister remember he said that `essentially competition and deregulation are aimed at benefiting consumers'? Would the minister now admit that price rises following partial deregulation of the dairy industry this year did not benefit consumers at all?6897Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not sure precisely what elements Senator Woodley is pointing to when he says there have been some price rises. Obviously rebalancing can occur within an industry and the end result can be of considerable net benefit to consumers. Competition will always allow market prices to emerge in ways which, almost in every instance, will deliver very good quality consumer outcomes. To the extent that they do not, you have trade practices commissions and other interventionist forums. But that is the starting point to seeing whether consumers will benefit. I think you will find in every instance that that is the case. If Senator Woodley wants to be more precise about some element, then I am sure we can address that specifically. The question was asked in general terms the other day and I gave him a general answer.6897Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I will be more specific: is the minister aware that the preferred option to compensate dairy farmers following deregulation is a transition package to be funded by a levy on milk sales? How will a levy on milk sales, which will further increase prices, benefit customers?6897Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I have no idea whether the price of milk is likely to come down for other reasons. It may well be that, as a result of a general opening up of the market, there is more competition between suppliers and retailers and as a result the price of milk could fall sufficiently to accommodate any additional levy, but still be well below the starting price. Again, I will get the detail of that considered by the minister and see if we can add anything further.68976897O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that tax laws require a couple living together to have similar health insurance if they are to avoid the Medicare surcharge? Why is there discrimination against couples where only one person has an interest in having private health insurance? Will this situation be replicated under the new Lifetime Health Cover system or will a person in a relationship be allowed to have insurance in their own right without bearing a penalty because their partner has chosen not to have health insurance in the past? Does the govern ment really want a situation where one of the first questions on a date becomes, `What is your effective age for private health insurance purposes?'6898Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The appalling hypocrisy of the Labor Party concerning private health insurance is really staggering. We are now down to the minutiae of the detail. Let me recount what occurred under the Labor Party in relation to private health insurance.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It is not relevant to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—It is relevant to the question because—just to save Senator Forshaw jumping up and talking about relevance—much of the pressure on the private health insurance system of this country is related to the effects of the Labor Party when they were in power. The first thing that the Labor Party did was to gradually phase out the contribution to the reinsurance pool between 1983 and 1989, and that loaded $100 million onto the funds. Next, they did away with the bed day-subsidy in September 1986, at a cost of $135 million. Then the Medicare rebate for in-hospital services was reduced to 75 per cent, with the funds being required to cover 25 per cent. Finally, the Medicare agreements of 1993 effectively gave the states incentives to increase public patient throughput at the expense of private patients, thus pushing private patients into private hospitals with increased cost to the insurance funds. In fact, Access Economics has calculated that the cost shifting involved in these measures by the Labor government, including the shift from public to private hospitals, cost the funds $846 million in today's terms, which represents a 39 per cent rise in premiums. The reality is, as Senator O'Brien would also appreciate, that with an ageing population something has to be done to try to cope with the increased demand on the public hospital system.It is not the government that is responsible for private health insurance. Those people who are adversely affected by private health insurance premiums have the right to go to a public hospital, so they need not be affected by the system that Senator O'Brien refers to. There is incentive but no requirement or compulsion for people to take out private health insurance. It is entirely up to the private health insurance funds, whomever they might be—MBF, et cetera—to determine what the premiums are. It is a competitive market. The vast majority are non-profit making organisations. Should those funds find that there is a disincentive for people in the sort of relationship that Senator O'Brien has mentioned, it is up to the private health insurance industry to do something about it, if they believe that it is in their commercial interest to do so.6898O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that my question was about the government's proposed new Lifetime Health Cover system and the existing tax laws, which I thought were laws that this government had made and therefore that it is the government that is responsible for this situation. I ask the minister to have a look at the question that I actually asked and give the Senate an answer now as to whether there will be a change to allow the person in that relationship to have insurance in their own right without bearing a penalty because their partner has chosen not to have health insurance in the past. It is in the government's control to do that. If you cannot answer my question now, Minister, perhaps you will give me the same courtesy that you gave Senator Bolkus and undertake to come back straight after question time.6898Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The government is working on the proposal for lifetime health insurance cover in an attempt to bolster private health insurance in this country. There is no finality—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Clearly, the minister has no idea about answering the question or the supplementary asked by Senator O'Brien—he has not got a clue. Can I suggest that you recommend to the minister that he just take it on notice and attempt to get an answer because he does not know what the answer to this question is. He should take it on notice and put us all out of our misery.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on the point of order: it is a very fitting way to end this session—the moment that the minister wants to get onto policy issues, the opposition immediately get to their feet and say that somehow they do not want to hear the answer. You ought to recognise that effort for what it was: a pathetic attempt. The minister for being rolled has now become a leader of the opposition without an interest in policy and I am delighted that he took the opportunity to demonstrate it.VW4Senator HERRON—On the point of order: it is apparent to me, after years of answering questions in relation to health, that not only do those opposite not understand the questions that they ask—and that is the fundamental problem for Senator Faulkner: he does not even understand his own question—but also when they get a proper and appropriate answer to the question that is asked they dispute that it is relevant. I would suggest that Senator Faulkner gets somebody on the opposition to develop a health policy so that we know what they stand for.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order.VW4Senator HERRON—The Lifetime Health Cover scheme which is being developed is part of a comprehensive strategy. The first step was the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate which addressed the issue of affordability of private health insurance. Other steps will follow on from that. As I have said to Senator O'Brien previously, it is the private health insurance industry and the Health Insurance Association that are primarily responsible. We are trying to support them with a 30 per cent rebate to make up for the deficiencies that the Labor Party caused with the exodus of patients from private health insurance from 70 per cent down to 30 per cent. We are addressing the problem. What is the Labor Party doing? It has no policy in relation to health care—none whatsoever. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Personal Explanations689915:01:006899Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Normally, personal explanations are taken at the end of taking note of answers to questions. If there is an exceptional reason for doing so earlier, we can look at it. As far as I am aware, no-one in the opposition has been advised of this. Leave will be given to Senator Vanstone, as is the normal course of events, at 3.30 p.m.Miscellaneous6899689915:02:006899Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—On 26 May, Senator Harradine asked me for details of the funding allocations in relation to the government's response to the Bringing them home report.Senator Patterson interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—That's what we always do. I thought you would have learned, you dope.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you are shouting across the chamber and you are behaving in a disorderly fashion.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—On 27 May, I provided information on the various elements of the packages of measures constituting the response which involves four different agencies across three portfolios. I also undertook to seek from the agencies involved detailed progress reports. I now have this information. There is a lot of detail here which I will make available for the information of the Senate.In this context, I also have some additional information to an answer I gave to a question from Senator Carr yesterday about the government's response to Bringing them home. In my answer I indicated that ATSIC was coordinating the government's response to the report. I was, of course, referring to the coordination of the family tracing part of the program—the Link-up program—which is the central plan of the $64 million Commonwealth response. Senator Carr asked why Victoria was coordinating the response. Victoria is chairing a MCATSIA committee overseeing the response not just of the Commonwealth but of the states and territories as well.The Commonwealth takes responsibility for the implementation of its own response separately from the activities of the states. This is evident from the information I will table today. In fact, the majority of the recommendations of the Bringing them home report were not directed at the Commonwealth but at the states, territories and non-government bodies such as churches. It is perfectly normal for MCATSIA activities to be chaired by different states. In fact, the chairmanship of MCATSIA is undertaken by the states and territories in turn. The next MCATSIA meeting will be in the Northern Territory and it is being coordinated by the Northern Territory government. As to the question of why there have been no meetings of officials to date, I am advised it is because they were waiting for responses from all the states and territories. I can advise Senator Carr that they were awaiting a response from his namesake in New South Wales, Mr Bob Carr. New South Wales only recently provided a response. As it is fairly detailed, I table the progress report.690015:04:006900Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Harradine asked me a question on 29 June and I have further information. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS PORTFOLIOSenator Harradine (Hansard Pinks of 29 June) asked Senator Vanstone:A.1. precisely what action has been taken to ensure that: - the Chinese woman subject of the forcible abortion allegations would not be forcibly sterilised;- that all the family planning fines would be waived; and- that she would be found a job and accommodation for her and her three year old daughter.B. The Senator also asked:1. How are these undertakings being monitored?2. Can the Minister provide the Senate with an up-to-date account of how the woman is and whether these monitoring activities are going to continue until that person is safe?C. He further asked that Senator Vanstone advise:1. Which consular officials have seen the woman in the last 2 weeks?2. What is the report of her condition at the present moment and the undertakings given by the Chinese authorities?3. Is the Government going to provide a temporary visa for her to come to Australia to give evidence to the Inquiries?Answer:The response to the Senator's questions is:A.1. We are satisfied with the arrangements which have been made by the Chinese government for Ms Zhu's resettlement in China. We are also satisfied on the basis of assurances by the Chinese government that she faces no threat from the Chinese authorities including forced sterilisation.- We are also satisfied that she has no fines to pay.- Our Consulate in Guangzhou has been in regular contact with Beihai officials involved in the woman's resettlement. They have confirmed, as recently as 29 June 1999, that she has been provided with a job and accommodation, furniture and other household equipment and that her daughter has been given a city residential permit. They have also advised that she is satisfied with the arrangements, although she has asked for a more spacious apartment, despite the fact that her apartment, at 20 sq metres is much larger than the average apartment of 13 sq metres.B.1. The woman has been told that she can contact the Australian Consulate in Guangzhou at any time if she so wishes. She has not done so. However as advised above, our Consulate in Guangzhou has been in regular contact with Beihai officials involved in the resettlement, as recently as 29 June 1999 and they con firmed advice of the resettlement arrangements. We expect that the regular contact between our Consulate officials and the Chinese authorities on this matter will continue for some time.2. I note also that Ms Marion Le. Ms Zhu's appointed migration agent and founding member of ICRA (the Independent Council for Refugee Advocacy), who initially raised these allegations with Senator Harradine, advised, in discussions with senior Immigration Department officials on 29 June 1999, that to ICRA's knowledge, the Chinese authorities were honouring their undertakings concerning accommodation and employment for Ms Zhu and registration of her daughter. Ms Le has also advised that someone known to ICRA (not a PRC national) has been in touch with Ms Zhu personally and can confirm that she and her daughter are physically safe.C.1. Consulate officials have not been in direct contact with her because of a concern to ensure that she has the opportunity to settle into her new situation.2. However, they have been in regular contact with the Chinese officials involved in the resettlement and the advice is that she is safe and sound.3. The woman's application for a visa for Australia is under consideration.690115:04:006901Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator O'Brien asked me a question on 28 June and I undertook to get some information for him. I seek leave to incorporate that answer in Hansard.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—QuestionWould the end of cabotage require changes to allow foreign seafarers to work in Australia for extended periods of time?Can the Minister assure the Senate that the liberalised customs and immigration arrangements necessitated by the end of cabotage would not result in an increased number of people attempting to enter Australia illegally?AnswerThe winding back of cabotage has been part of the Government `s policy since 1996 as means of improving Australia's international competitiveness. The Government commissioned, and has now received two separate reports examining the Australian shipping industry and making recommendations on ways to make it make internationally competitive by winding back cabotage.The Shipping Reform Group (Manser) report recognised that community standards need to be adequately protected through customs and migration regulation. It recommended greater certainty through the tightening of customs discretion in relation to decisions about whether vessels on international voyages would be considered to be imported and hence whethercrew were subject to immigration requirements.The second report, the Shipping Reform Working Group report, was forwarded to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in May for his consideration.It would be inappropriate to comment further on these issues prior to the Government considering the Shipping Reform Working Group report.690115:04:006901Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Stott Despoja asked me a question on 23 June and I have further information for her.I seek leave to incorporate that answer in Hansard.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Senator Stott Despoja asked me a question on 23 June and I have further information for her. I seek leave to incorporate that information in Hansard.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SUBJECT: GENETIC PRIVACY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION BILL 1998QUESTION ASKED: "I would be curious as to the Minister's response to that bill and its recommendations. Can I assume from the Minister's answer that she believes it is now time that the Government supports and introduces comprehensive legislation to protect genetic privacy—that is, to protect people's personal genetic information?"BY WHOM: Senator Stott-DespojaWHEN: 23 June 1999ANSWER: . The Attorney-General advises me that a Government Response to the Report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee about the Genetic Privacy and Non Discrimination Bill is now being developed.. It would serve no useful purpose to speculate about what the details of that Response might be.. However, the Government certainly recognises that the privacy and discrimination issues raised by genetic information are extremely complex and warrant serious consideration.. A Government Response will be tabled as soon as practicable.690215:05:006902Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin) and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked today, relating to the goods and services tax.In question time today there were three dorothy dixers from the government backbench to frontbenchers, all about boosting the government's stocks—and no-one believes that—on the GST. They were ministerial puff pieces to try to beat their chest about how triumphant they are and how important this so-called tax reform is for Australia. Senator Hill told us that it would have a lot to do with economic growth and jobs. What Senator Hill neglected to tell the Senate was that the two major macro-economic model studies of the Australian economy looking at the GST found that it would have negligible growth on the GST—on the most favourable assumptions made by the modellers. On the most realistic assumptions, the modellers found that, given the dog's breakfast of a GST we now have with the comprise package with the Australian Democrats, it would have a negative impact on economic growth in Australia.Senator Minchin deigned to tell us that there would be 7,000 new jobs in the mining industry. He is the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Encompassed in that portfolio is tourism. What he neglected to tell us was that the services sector of the Australian economy represents 75 per cent of the Australian economy and the services sector will carry a new 10 per cent levy. On the economic models that we have commissioned, there will be 100,000 job losses in Australia in the medium term because of the GST, and it will fall heaviest on the tourist industry—the industry in which young Australians often get a start from the ranks of the unemployed and get an opportunity to work. It will fall heaviest as well on our education exports where we are selling intelligent exports abroad. Every other service sector in Australia, which up until now has not been taxed, will lose employment because of the new tax impost. Those are not my words: those are the words of the independent modellers.We had from Senator Alston the notion, fanciful in the extreme, that this was a boon for small business, but $1.9 billion in extra compliance costs borne by small business is no boon. Turning every small business company in Australia into a collector for the Australian Taxation Office is no boon and small business reject this tax out of hand. Their organisations say so, the evidence to our inquiry showed they oppose it and the complications now with the Democrat-government GST makes it even more complex. We went through the issues of a hot chook and a cold chook; we went through the issues of which food is in and which food is out. Small business are going to have to police it. They do not want it. It is no boon for small business.We have had the Treasurer in the other place boast that prices will come down. I do not believe prices will fall anything like the level that they should because this government and the Democrats refused to allow the Labor amendment requiring that the level of tax be shown on the price label so that consumers can work out what the old price was, what the new price should be and how much tax they are paying. They do not want the consumers to know what the price really should be and work out for themselves what is happening. They want one price and one label and you work it out for yourselves. This will enable people to scalp prices and they will not fall. We will police this issue.There might be some price falls, let me acknowledge that, but only in a few sectors and on a very few items. Let me just run through where there will be price rises. Already in the real estate supplements of every national daily paper we have the headlines, `Buy now before the GST'. Prices will go up in the housing and real estate sector. A family going on an outing to the football or the rugby will pay extra costs on admission. Taking the kids to McDonald's or Kentucky Fried Chicken or any other fast food outlet will involve extra costs on the tucker. There will be extra costs for school uniforms, shoes, books, bus fares, outings, camps, user fees and computer software.There will be extra costs on car maintenance, car insurance, household insurance, haircuts and legal fees. There will be extra conveyancing costs and extra costs to get divorced or even to get married. There will be extra accounting costs; doing your tax return will cost more. There will be extra costs on electrical work, plumbing work, carpentry, housing in general, funerals, having your lawn mowed, having your house painted and taking your kids on a holiday. There will be extra costs on books and extra costs on public transport. There will be extra costs for Australians who go on package tours within Australia, but not for foreigners who do so. There will be extra costs on every service that is delivered in Australia. This is nightmare on main street. (Time expired)15:10:006903Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—And Senator Cook is nightmare in the Senate. He just experienced that nightmare when the Australian Democrats and the government joined together to deliver the greatest tax reforms that Australia has ever witnessed. The simple question that the people of Australia are asking of Senator Cook and the Labor Party is this: if you are so opposed to this package, what is your policy? And there is deathly silence on the Labor side because Mr Beazley, when he was finance minister, knew the need for a goods and services tax, and indeed he supported Mr Keating whilst he was Treasurer in his bid for a goods and services tax. They never had the courage to take it to the Australian people. What the Labor Party regret is that we did have the courage to take it to the Australian people. What they regret even more is that we won the election, having had that courage. What they regret even further is that it has got through the parliament.What we have witnessed from Senator Cook today is a man fighting yesterday's battle. The new tax system is now law in this country; it has passed through both houses. It is about to get the Governor-General's signature on it. It is over and done with. It is time to move on, develop policies, produce something in contradistinction to what we are proposing. But no, bankruptcy reigns supreme on the other side in the area of policy. What Senator Cook so deceptively refused to tell the Australian people in his very short contribution was that the biggest income tax cuts to be delivered to the average working man and woman in this country will more than compensate for any increase that might be occasioned as a result of the goods and services tax. Why is it that Senator Cook somehow demands that the GST be shown on all the dockets that we get when we go shopping, when he never insisted on that for the wholesale sales tax which the Labor Party supports?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Twenty-two per cent on computers.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Yes, and 32 per cent on jewellery, 32 per cent on cameras, 22 per cent on new cars, 12 per cent on ice-cream and 12 per cent on chocolate. All those taxes will be removed. Why is it that he wants the bed taxes in New South Wales to remain in place? Because that is part of what the Labor Party are supporting. Why is it that the Labor Party want the financial institutions duty to remain? Why is it that the Labor Party want the stamp duties to remain? Why is it that the Labor Party want the high income tax rates to remain? These are the questions that the Australian people are asking, and the Labor Party have been found wanting.There have been silly comments like, `The costs of leasing fees and conveyancing will go up,' which was used as an example by Senator Cook. The lawyers' proportion might, but if you have a conveyancing matter which is devoid of the financial institutions duty and devoid of the stamp duty on mortgages and the commercial sectors, then there will be a reduction. What we have witnessed this afternoon is the sad tale of a failed minister who now swans around as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate seeking to fight a battle that has been lost by Labor.Let Labor say whether they will reverse the goods and services tax and the new tax system if they were ever to win government. They are saying that they cannot, but we know from the honourable member for Werriwa, Mark Latham, that you can unscramble it. He has said so. If you are so against this new tax system, go to the Australian people saying you will undo it. You can undo the legislation if you want to. Give us a policy and tell us whether you are going to do that. Of course you will not, because you know it is good for the country, and if ever you were to win government you would want to see the benefits for this nation yourself. It is time that Labor got a policy of their own instead of just being negative. The Australian people deserve and expect better from the opposition.15:15:006904Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—What we have seen in the last month, and especially the last few days, is the government claiming, `We have done it. We have delivered the new tax for the new millennium.' John Howard said, `I started this off in 1974, at the time of the Asprey report, at the beginning of the debate about the GST.' You suddenly realise that 25 years ago they were advocating this tax. I was barely alive 25 years ago. This mob have just introduced a tax system that has been around for 25 years; that is 25 years just to get this one up. This tax was invented in 1945.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—By the French.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is right. We have adopted a 1945 French system that was designed before computers were invented. What about e-commerce, I hear you ask. How does the GST fix e-commerce? It doesn't. What about the new millennium and the changes that will happen in society? It does not deal with them. But those opposite will tell you, after 25 years of peddling the same rotten old idea, that it is a new tax for a new millennium.What about the Democrats? What have we seen from the Democrats? I have accused them of selling out. We have seen the Democrats cop heaps from the Greens and from the Labor Party about selling out. They rolled over on diesel. They rolled over on the tax cuts. They had said, `You can't have all the tax cuts going to the rich,' but they rolled over when the Prime Minister said no. They rolled over on Ralph. They sent a few ideas off to Ralph, and what did Ralph say this week? He waited till after they had voted for the tax package and then turned around and said, `You've got to be joking. We're not going to have a look at those idiotic proposals you sent to us.' Ralph rolled them. Then they rolled over on books. We have seen the Democrats tear themselves apart on books. We have seen them roll over on chickens. They were going to die in the ditch on cooked chickens, but they rolled over in the end. What about a bread recipe? They were rolled on that one. What about charities? They were rolled on that one as well.The really cowardly act by the Democrats and this government was about the high rollers in casinos. When it mattered, where did they stand on that one? They voted yes on the high-roller exemptions. You will pay a GST and I will pay a GST, but if you are a high roller at the casino you will not. The casino looks after its mates. It flies you in, it gives you a thousand dollars worth of free rooms and all that sort of stuff. You get the GST exemption for that, but not if you are down there playing the pokies and not if you are down there playing a bit of two-up on Anzac Day. You are paying the GST then, but not if you are a high roller, a Kerry Packer, in the Mahogany Room at Crown. What did the Democrats do? Two of them did the right thing. Two of them voted against that amendment. Where were the other five Democrats? They took the chicken walk out the door. The only reason the high-roller casino amendment got up was that the Democrats walked out. We all thought it was a really cheap deal. We all thought that the Red Indians in America got a better deal: a few beads and a few blankets for Manhattan Island. We thought those Democrats went cheap. But it has become apparent today what the real deal was: the Deputy Prime Minister is resigning and Meg Lees is taking over. They fought hard and they got a good deal. They rolled over but, no, that is not right.Today we have seen the Prime Minister concede that most people do not want the GST. That is a blinding flash of inspiration from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister conceded that most people do not want it but he said he would convince them. The government are going to spend up to $90 million more trying to convince people that this is good for them. They were not content with abusing the Australian taxpayer by spending $15 million on the advertising campaign two weeks before an election. They did not mind abusing the taxpayers' pockets before the election, but now the real atrocity will take place: $90 million trying to convince Australians that the GST is good for them. The Prime Minister knows they do not want it, but he has got it through the parliament and he has bought the Democrats off. That may be at the higher price of the Deputy PM; maybe not. Who knows? We will find out this afternoon. We will see whether Meg Lees ends up Deputy Prime Minister by the end of the day. Perhaps she will.Jeff Kennett has blown the whistle on them. He said that this is a dog's breakfast. I agree with your laughing, Senator Hill. Jeff Kennett, number one ticket holder for the GST, dragged the Prime Minister screaming and kicking into this debate. Now Jeff Kennett, who has got an election to face in a couple of months, wants to say, `This is terrible. Small businesses are going to be hurt.' That is exactly right.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Not the casino.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—It is a pretty big business, Senator Sherry; it is not a small business. (Time expired)15:20:006905Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—What a strange, pathetic performance. What it reinforces is the fact that on the other side of this chamber we have an opposition that qualifies for one award, and that is the nitpicker award. That is all they do. They have no vision for Australia, they have no vision about a tax system and they have no vision about a business system. They have not even got the courage to speak to their Western Australian colleagues and deal with the problems that exist with native title. When the Western Australian Labor Party walked away from the proposed arrangements there, and I refer particularly to Senator Minchin's answer to my question today, they created an incredible mess for the mining and pastoral industries in Western Australia. Part of that responsibility must lie on the other side of the chamber. Those people have no idea whatsoever of the damage they are doing to the mining industry and the pastoral industry in Western Australia because of the particular position they have adopted on the native title reforms that went through this chamber. They must remember that the bottom line is that the people they are really hurting are the Aboriginal communities who lose the opportunity to become a component part of the mining industry. The opposition must always wear that fairly and squarely.I would be interested to hear, in the final contribution from the Labor Party in this debate, whether they actually have any vision whatsoever on where they want to see Australia in the future, in the next millennium. There have been one or two, like Mr Latham, who have said that the egg can be unscrambled, that it only requires a piece of legislation in here.Members of the opposition talk about the tourism industry. Senator Cook claimed, quite fallaciously, that 100,000 jobs would go. He should visit tourist destinations in Australia today, especially in my home state. I was in Esperance the other day and 17 charter buses were there. The drivers all said, `The sooner we get reduced costs on fuel, the sooner we get the wholesale sales tax out of the system, the sooner it comes off parts, fuel and tyres, the better.' The cost of the wholesale sales tax on tyres alone on tourist buses is absolutely enormous. That translates to other industries, such as agriculture, mining or whatever.You have consistently supported taxing the cost of the components that make up running a business. In doing that, your policy position has restricted the development of industry in this country. You need to recognise that. You need to catch up with where we need to be. There was a short time back in 1985, I think, when Mr Keating saw the light and tried to do something about it. I was at that particular conference. It was interesting to note at that time who led the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, back into the room with their tails between their legs. It was none other than Mr Simon Crean, who I believe was the President of the ACTU at that particular time, and if he was not, he was certainly—Senator O'Brien interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—He was President of the ACTU—thanks for confirming that, Senator O'Brien—8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I said that he showed a great deal of foresight.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—No, he did not. He held back this country for a number of years. We saw the former Prime Minister—which was not unusual for him—with tears streaming out of his eyes. We saw a shattered Treasurer. They knew that what Australia needed at that time was reform of the taxation system. They were rolled—as they have been rolled so many times—by senior officials of the union movement.The last thing I want to mention is the PAYE taxpayers—the workers of this country that you claim are the people who support you. Your position was to deny them tax cuts. We are not talking about the high rollers in this particular case; we are talking about the average working men and women of this country who work very hard to support their families. You were denying them tax cuts. You had a broken-down tax system. You had a PAYE tax system that was out of control. (Time expired)15:25:006906Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I just want to remind the Senate, and those listening, of something. Who said that he had pushed the GST but, `I honestly think that now the GST's receded from consciousness it's been invested with some snake-oil qualities'? That was in November 1996. I will give the Senate a hint. It is the same person who, in reference to excluding food from the GST, said it would be `the nightmare on Main Street' and has since been wandering around the country waving thermometers. That same person negotiated a deal with the Democrats to exclude food from the GST. It was none other than the Treasurer, Mr Costello.We all remember what Mr Howard said. He said, `There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy.' The reporter asked him, `Never ever?' Mr Howard replied:Never ever. It's dead; it was killed by the voters at the last election.That was in May 1995. In the last couple of days we have heard Mr Howard triumphantly proclaiming that the GST has been on the agenda for 25 years. Will he say that in his national broadcast tonight? Will he even mention the term `GST' in his broadcast tonight? According to the Treasurer, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Democrats, we are standing on the edge of an economic nirvana—we are setting Australia up for the next 1,000 years.Ask the French about that. Look at the state of the French economy. The French invented the GST 50 years ago. According to Mr Costello and Mr Howard, the GST is good for the states. Ask Jeff Kennett about that. According to the Liberals, the GST is good for employment. All the research shows that, at best, it is job neutral, but it may cost up to about 100,000 jobs. According to the Liberals, it will boost savings. Not one person seriously advances that argument anymore. According to the Liberals, it will be good for exporters, but according to Treasury the increase in export prices will be offset by the appreciation of the Australian dollar.Apparently, there is going to be more money for welfare—and that is from a government which has cut billions of dollars from education and health over the last four years and which says that the GST will never ever go up. Apparently, the GST is going to be a huge boost for small business. I repeat Mr Costello's own words: `It is going to be a nightmare on Main Street.' Apparently, it is going to help families. If you are an upper income family, it certainly will help you. Apparently, it is going to boost growth. According to the modelling that has been done, average growth per capita will increase 60c a week after five years. Apparently, it is going to be good for the bush and for regional Australia. Only the National Party could agree to a whacking great new tax with some exemptions—the nightmare on Main Street. Only the National Party could be silly enough to agree to a new tax on the basic commodities produced by farmers in this country. Only the National Party could be that stupid.A range of exaggerated claims has been made about the GST. One advanced economy in the world does not have a GST—the United States. Whilst correlation is not necessarily causation, if we look at the strength of the United States economy I do not seriously believe that the strength of the Australian economy or the strength of the US economy will in any way be significantly improved by a new tax—a goods and services tax.I did say that only the National Party could be silly enough to agree to a tax on food—a party which purportedly represents farmers. But there is an even sillier party in this Senate—and I could be harsher in my criticism—and that is the Australian Democrats. They swallowed it hook, line and sinker.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Do you mean the opposition—the real opposition?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I will take the interjection, Senator Calvert. Go out and sell the GST in Tasmania. I have a pretty good idea what the result will be in Tasmania at least—the Labor vote will go up. Send Senator Abetz out to sell the GST—that would be even better.All the promises and all the grandiose claims that have been made about a GST are, in reality, highly exaggerated and false if you look around the world at the economies that have the goods and services tax. Japan was the latest to introduce it. Look at what has happened to Japan since it introduced a GST. Look at what happened when it increased the GST in Japan. The goods and services tax will not be good for this country. It will be bad for low and middle income earners. The Australian Democrats have guaranteed that outcome—a worse outcome for low and middle income earners in this country. (Time expired)15:30:006907Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Clearly it has been a terribly bad week and a bad year for the Australian Labor Party. On Senator Sherry's own admission, they will not have an alternative policy for at least a year or so. They have now convened a special policy powwow to try to fill in the interregnum. They have also, via their leader Mr Beazley, made a plea today to find a federal president who is a policy person. They are desperate to find someone who has some policy credentials and who can actually put together a few thoughts to come up with a new idea for policy.In the meantime, we have Mr Beazley's concept about how to handle the tax debate changing every day. Yesterday it was, `We're going to have to go down below the radar'—whatever that means. A few days before that he said, `We're going to have to walk this tax policy back,' which is dangerous for most people. I think in policy terms it is incredibly dangerous.The question Mr Beazley and honourable senators opposite are going to need to answer for the Australian people, when they start walking back the tax reform policy, is: how are they going to walk it back? What many Australians would want to know—especially when Mr Beazley says that we are moving into the information age, we all have to get online and the future of Australia is the information economy—is: is he going to walk back the tax reform proposals? Is he going to walk back Australia's tax laws to reimpose the 22 per cent tax on computers and hardware which this Senate just last night agreed to take off?Mr Beazley talks about taxes on books and he talks about taxes on chooks. That, in many respects, is the old economy. The new econ omy is about getting people online. It is about—to use the title of Bill Gates's new book—creating a digital nervous system. It is about rapidly increasing the quality of communications and access to information for all Australians, allowing us to communicate instantaneously with anyone around the world, and accessing enormous amounts of information, ensuring that all Australians get the benefits of that.When Mr Beazley talks about walking back tax, the first question they need to answer when they are writing a policy is: will they put the 22 per cent tax back on telecommunications equipment and therefore put up the price of getting access to digital telecommunications for average Australians? Will they put the 22 per cent tax back on PCs, back on laptops, back on modems and back on every other piece of equipment that you need to get yourself into the digital economy or, if you are an average Australian household, that will allow your children the benefits of accessing the Internet and the enormous amount of information and entertainment that is available through the Internet? Will Mr Beazley and his acolytes opposite reimpose the 22 per cent tax on the information economy? It is an up-front tax.The Australian Bureau of Statistics have said that the biggest inhibitor to Australians getting online is the cost of the hardware. This government has just abolished the 22 per cent tax on computers, and the opposition have said, `No, let's put it back there.' We want to know if they are sticking to that policy. Their shadow spokesman on the online economy should make an announcement about that within the next day or so because the online economy needs to know where the Labor Party stand on walking back the tax. Are you going to put 22 per cent back on computers? Are you going to put that up-front tax on average Australians getting online? That is a crucial question for the future of Australia.The Australian Labor Party are going to have to do a lot better than that. They are going to have to say whether they are going to put 22 per cent taxes back on a range of other things. Are they going to put the 32 per cent tax back on televisions? Australia would like to move into the age of digital television. Will the Australian Labor Party, when we are on the cusp of the digital revolution, walk tax back to impose a 32 per cent sales tax on digital televisions? That is another question that those opposite will need to answer. This government has gone forward with a tax policy that imposes a GST. It took a lot of political commitment to go to an election with a policy to put a 10 per cent tax on things. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations690815:35:006908Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.Leave granted.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Yesterday evening the Senate debated the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 . I was on a pair at the time and the debate was handled by my colleague, Senator the Hon. Jocelyn Newman. During the debate a question arose about the time that had been available to the opposition to consider amendments circulated by the Greens (WA) and agreed to by the government. Senator Margetts observed during the debate that the Greens were under the impression that the agreed amendments had been provided to the opposition by the government and had been discussed between the government and the opposition. Senator Newman, in her speech in reply, confirmed that that indeed had occurred.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. As I was present at the debate last night, and given that Senator Vanstone's name was not mentioned at any stage as the responsible minister for the government, I do not think that it is proper or in order for Senator Vanstone to make a claim that she has been misrepresented. There has been no involvement of the said minister.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! A personal explanation does not have to be in relation to something that someone is alleged to have said, but it will need to involve the minister in some way.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. At the time, Senator Faulkner chose to make what was regarded as an inflammatory and factually incorrect speech in which he made—as he occasionally does—the extremely serious allegation that Senator Newman had misled the Committee of the Whole. This accusation, of course, reflects upon me by implying that the information provided to Senator Newman on my behalf has misled her and allowed her, a colleague, to mislead the Senate.I wish to make an explanation that Senator Newman was absolutely correct in stating that the agreed amendments had been provided to the opposition and that, therefore, Senator Faulkner was clearly incorrect. The agreed amendments were supplied to the shadow minister for justice and customs in two parts, the initially agreed amendments relating to the extraterritorial application for the proposed offences on 12 May 1999 and the remainder relating to a new offence with an element of recklessness on 27 May 1999. In other words, the first part was supplied 48 days before the debate yesterday, and the remainder were supplied 33 days beforehand.In conclusion, I add for Senator Faulkner's benefit that I have spoken to Duncan Kerr about this. He accepts that they were delivered. I understand the mistake that Senator Faulkner made, because he was advised by Duncan Kerr, possibly, indirectly that he had not seen them. That is a matter for Mr Kerr to sort out in his office. But we have the fax confirmations that these amendments were sent 48 and 33 days beforehand. Senator Newman was correct and did not mislead the Senate.690910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:6909211GB6 SF4Collins Sen Jacinta; Cooney Sen BarneyTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned students, staff and friends of the University of Ballarat requests the Senate to call on the Australian Government to withdraw its draconian Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (HEL) which will if passed only serve to reduce student services and facilities and seriously erode the efficient representative structure which has been established over many years.Senator Jacinta CollinsGB6Senator Jacinta Collins(from 105 citizens)Senator CooneySF4Senator Cooney(from 106 citizens)6909667ZS6Quirke Sen JohnWe, the residents of Australia, draw the attention of the House to the dangers of abolishing universal membership of student organisations which we believe would cut vital student services such as:academic rights assistance;childcare;welfare, financial, legal and sexual harassment counselling;student employment services;sporting facilities;financial and administrative support for student clubs and societies;student newspapers and student radio;study support facilities;orientation and student support programsSuch a move would also prevent students from having an organised voice on matters directly affecting them ranging from university policies to government cutbacks to university funding. Students should be allowed to have a democratic representative voice based on the whole student body. This can only occur if there is universal membership.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will refrain from passing legislation to abolish universal student membership of student organisations.Senator QuirkeZS6Senator Quirke(from 667 citizens)69098637L6Hogg Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows:1. The unfairness of the GST to Logan residents and that families and pensioners will not be adequately compensated for the increased cost of living caused by the GST;2. That economic experts have forecast major job losses from the GST in Queensland; and 3. That the Local Government Association of Queensland has identified at least 67 Logan City Council charges that will be affected by the GST.As petitioners we request that the Senate rejects the GST in its totality and supports instead a fairer tax system for Australia.Senator Hogg7L6Senator Hogg(from 863 citizens)6910121403I6Stott Despoja Sen NatashaTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The undersigned Petitioners respectfully request that the Senate recognises: That, for many Australians, the Internet plays a vital role as a means of communication, a vehicle for the expression of ideas and opinions, and a source of information. That the Internet is a complex, global environment where traditional concepts of regulation are not easily applied or enforced. That there is a need to make a clear distinction between the responsibility of those who produce and publish content and that of intermediaries such as carriers and Internet Service providers. That the full potential for development of the Internet in Australia will depend on governments recognising rights to freedom of speech taken for granted by other societies. That the emerging information industries should not be burdened with unnecessary and poorly conceived regulation.The petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to reject any attempt by the Government to impose additional censorship on the Internet.Senator Stott Despoja3I6Senator Stott Despoja(from 12,140 citizens)691022153L6Conroy Sen StephenTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:Evidence shows that the majority of Australians oppose a Goods and Services Tax (GST). So we the undersigned call upon our Senators to reject this tax completely. We ask our Senators to remember that at the last election, in the lower house, the current Coalition Government received only 39.5% of the national primary vote and also trailed in the two party preferred vote.In the Senate, the Coalition received only 38% while parties opposing the GST won better than 58%. We say that these results clearly indicate that the present government does not hold a mandate to implement the GST and that majority of the Senators were elected on the expectation that they would reject the GST completely. Senator Conroy3L6Senator Conroy(from 2,215 citizens)691010113L6Conroy Sen StephenTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned support the claim that the majority of Australians oppose a Goods and Services Tax (GST). We ask our Senators to remember that at the last federal election the current Coalition Government received, in the House of Representatives, only 39.5% of the national primary vote and also trailed in the two party preferred vote.In the Senate, the Coalition received on 38% while parties opposing the GST won better than 58%. We say that these results clearly indicate that the present government does not hold a mandate to implement the GST.Your Petitioners request that the Senate reject the GST completely.Senator Conroy3L6Senator Conroy(from 1,011 citizens)Petitions received.Notices69106910Senator Murray to move on the next day of sitting:(contingent on the Senate proceedings to consider a motion for the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the Republic (Consultation on an Elected President) Bill 1999 in conjunction with the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999.Senator Carr to move on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) recognises the economic and social value of freshwater recreational fishing in Australia;(b) expresses support for Australia's growing aquaculture industry;(c) notes that a decision on the importation of uncooked salmon meat into Australia is imminent;(d) considers that any decision on the importation of uncooked salmon meat should only be taken after exhaustive scientific evaluation and community consultation on the possible impact of the introduction of exotic diseases on native fish and on Australia's recreational fishing and aquaculture industries; (e) views, with concern, the possibility of the introduction of exotic diseases into Australia by the importation of uncooked salmon meat; and(f) calls on the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service to use all possible measures to protect Australia's recreational fishing industry, aquaculture industries and native fish species from the importation of exotic diseases.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That on Tuesday, 10 August 1999:(a) the hours of meeting shall be 2 pm to 6.30 pm, and 7.30 pm to 12.40 am, Wednesday, 11 August 1999;(b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm to midnight shall be government business only; and(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at midnight.Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Mackay, to move, on 12 August 1999:That the Amendment of section 95.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders, dated 30 April 1999, and made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 be disallowed.691115:40:006911Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—At the request of the respective senators, I withdraw government business notice of motion No. 5, and the following general business notices of motion: 5, 15, 19, 28, 33, 36, 42, 53, 54, 63, 77, 81, 88, 89, 92, 94, 104, 112, 133, 138, 141, 143, 158, 165, 177, 179, 183, 198, 204 and 231.Committees69116911691115:40:006911Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 11th report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 11 OF 19991. The Committee met on 29 June 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend-(a) That the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateNational Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyCommunity Affairs24 August 1999(b) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateFederal Magistrates Bill 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional30 September 1999 Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)(c) That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999. Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999. Electoral Amendment (Senate Elections) Bill 1999. Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999. Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 20 April 1999). Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999. Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 25 May 1999). ACIS Administration Bill 1999. ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 22 June 1999). Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 29 June 1999). Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999. Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999. Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999. Tradex Scheme Bill 1999. War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999. Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2].(Paul Calvert)Chair30 June 1999 Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration. To determine the impact of the proposed Lifetime Health Cover on the viability of private health insurance and the flow on impact for the public hospital system. To recommend consumer safeguards and other amendments to ensure the scheme is viable and equitable.Possible submission or evidence from:Private insurance companies, Australian Consumers Association, Community Health Forum, youth groups, Institute of Actuaries, Trowbridge Actuaries, NCEPH, Ian McAuley (University of Canberra), aged care groupsCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Community Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) :August 9—12 1999Possible reporting date :August 24 1999signedKerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeNames of bills :Federal Magistrates Bill 1999Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Establishment of new Chapter III Court under the Australian Constitution—the bills represent an important judicial innovation.Possible submission or evidence from:Attorney-General's DepartmentCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s): OpenPossible reporting date: 30 September 1999(signed)Paul CalvertWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member Notices69136913Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the names of Senators Margetts and Brown for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Community Affairs References Committee, postponed till 20 September 1999.Miscellaneous6913Motion (by Senator Margetts) not agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Friday, 18 June 1999, was `J18', an international day of action against the corporate tyranny and the negative impacts caused by the excesses of global capital, (ii) Australians joined other communities in at least 80 cities around the world in this protest, which marked the opening of the G8 Summit in Cologne, Germany, and (iii) that the protestors were calling for governments to take action such as: (a) the cancellation of third world debt, (b) the elimination of tax havens, (c) the restructuring of international financial institutions and of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization, (d) the taxation of speculative financial transactions, for example, a Tobin Tax, (e) implementing global capital gains tax, (f) implementing a tax on direct foreign investments, (g) implementing eco-taxes, and (h) the dismantling of multilateral free-trade agreements which grant investors rights to the detriment of nations and their citizens; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to listen to these community concerns and transparently advocate these concerns in international fora, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the upcoming millennium round of the World Trade Organization.Bills6913s2216913Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to provide for the electors to be consulted on an elected president at the same time as the Constitution Alteration (Establish of Republic) 1999 is submitted to them, and, if the electors express a preference for an elected president, to initiate an alteration of the Constitution to achieve an elected president.Motion (by Senator Murray) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.691315:44:006913Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum and have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This Bill has a very simple, yet very important, purpose. It seeks to give electors the opportunity, at the same time as they vote upon the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of a Republic) Bill 1999 , to send a message to this Parliament as to whether they want their Head of State elected or appointed. It seeks to counter the monopolisation of the referendum process by those in favour of the Prime Minister/Parliament appointed model, by ensuring that the preferences of the people are made unambiguously clear.Denying the people a choice on direct election of their Head of State is fundamentally undemocratic. If our politicians deny the people such an opportunity, they will probably guarantee that their Prime Minister/Parliament appointed model is rejected.We are all aware of the consistent and major support for a directly elected Head of State amongst the public. This Bill will guarantee that the ultimate, indisputable mass opinion poll is subsequently conducted, as is proper. Should a majority of electors express a preference for a directly elected president, this Bill provides for an elected convention to be subsequently conducted to come up with the most appropriate model for direct election. The Bill is therefore not prescriptive as to the desired model.This process would accompany the decision to either reject or accept the proposed referendum model and would not interfere with either of those choices.The arguments for direct election of a President have been aired in various forums. I wish to highlight the key reasons why this country's citizens deserve the right to elect their own head of state, toward which this Bill takes the first steps.The Constitutional model that is being put forward by the Australian Republican Movement (and others) for politicians and not the people to appoint the Australian Head of State goes against the most fundamental tenet of the Australian system of government.This system is recognised in law as being founded on the sovereignty of the citizenry. It is the people that maintain control over the structure of this system via the s128 method (requiring a referendum) of altering the Constitution.Originally the Courts viewed our sovereignty as being derived from the Constitution being an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. In now proposing to formally sever the tie with the United Kingdom we must understand that to withhold from citizens even the choice of determining the right to elect their own head of state would be to maintain a vestige of the old system that rested on the executive selecting a candidate for royal approval. Instead the executive will select a candidate for parliamentary approval, which will (on precedent) be dictated by the self-same executive. How can that square with the notion that it is the Australian public—not the Parliament, not the executive—that is sovereign?A directly elected President would also enhance the separation of powers in our system of Government. The doctrine of separation of powers is insufficiently respected, but is one of the most important features of the political heritage of our nation. The politician-appointed model would denigrate this doctrine by further concentrating power in the hands of the executive. The model gives the Prime Minister summary and sole powers of dismissal, to be confirmed by the House of Representatives which would provide no safeguard. The Senate is specifically and deliberately excluded in this act of executive reinforcement.The House of Representatives is more correctly described as the House of the Executive. The Prime Minister controls the Cabinet, the Cabinet controls the party in government, and they have the numbers to do whatever they please. The exclusion of the Senate, elected under proportional representation, ensures that the political party in power has unfettered control of the dismissal power. That is not democratic, it is authoritarian.Contrary to the parliamentary and judicial processes of other countries, the politician-appointed model proposes that an Australian President may be removed at any time by a notice in writing issued by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister need not provide any reason for this decision—extraordinarily, no grounds for dismissal are outlined in the model.The President is removed immediately upon the Prime Minister's notice being issued. The Prime Minister's decision must be ratified by the House of Representatives within 30 days, but if the House does not ratify the Prime Minister's action, the President remains dismissed. This would be a pointless exercise. Meanwhile a stand-in will assume the role of President, over whom the Prime Minister also has powers of instant dismissal. Following this, it is the Prime Minister once again who selects the permanent new President.It is clear the Prime Minister retains complete control over this process from start to finish.Opponents of direct election have no answer to this argument. They are indisputably advocating a further concentration of power in the hands of the executive. So instead there is a scare campaign against direct election of our head of state. The scare-mongers have been careful not to attack the principle, as they know this is sound. Rather, they cite what they see as the inevitable practical outcome, that we would end up with a politician as our Head of State, as their key objection. Professor Craven ( The Australian , Friday, Feb 5 1999, p17) deliberately propagates this simplistic view :Who could doubt for a second that both major political parties would throw all their energies into capturing that position to use against their political opponents? Who else would have the money, organisation and experience to do so? What this means is that under direct election, the president will always—by definition—be a politician.It is by no means certain such an outcome would eventuate. Systems can be devised to ensure that candidates who are apolitical are on an even playing field with those sponsored by parties (eg. by public funding for non-aligned candidates and by requiring aligned candidates to include in their adverts `authorised by' messages such as currently occur in federal elections, so that the electors know that they are voting for an aligned candidate). Further controls on advertising may be possible now that the High Court has watered down its position on implied freedoms of political communication.But even if it is accepted that politicians may win the presidency by direct election, why would this be such a negative? First, it would be the will of the people. If Australians vote in a politician then it is their sovereign right to do so. Second, politics gives such people a grounding in affairs of state and a grasp of the complexity of the range of issues with which governments must deal, that persons from other backgrounds may not possess.Third, there is no guarantee that a person from outside of politics will perform any differently in the role in a time of crisis than a former politician. The Governor General at the centre of the 1975 constitutional crisis, for example, was not a politician. He was an ex-Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The last politician in the Governor General's position was Bill Hayden. There were no significant shortcomings in the performance of Bill Hayden, at least while he was Governor General. The truth is that there can be no guarantees of the performance of an individual by virtue of the method of selection. Fourth, those who oppose direct election on the grounds it would deliver a politician defy reason—as they seem unconcerned that the bipartisan model would allow politicians to appoint the President. Make no mistake about this—it will be a political appointment. A committee of thirty two, sixteen politicians and sixteen prominent citizens, all possibly owing their selection to political criteria, will present three names to the Prime Minister. After selecting one, the Prime Minister will then consult another politician, the Opposition Leader, and then other federal politicians of note. No matter what result, this very process is inherently biased toward a political outcome.I wish to make it clear that these arguments do not mean that I necessarily advocate a politician for the position, but rather they demonstrate that if this were the outcome, it would not present a problem for our political system. Australians accept a political system where the Prime Minister and his or her executive are part of the parliamentary system. We are therefore not contemplating an executive president. The President would continue to have limited powers and be largely ceremonial. Nevertheless, the limited mandate this person would have from their election would give them no less authority to speak out over issues of relevant and legitimate concern to him or her (as our present Governor General has already quite properly done in a limited and careful way), whilst continuing to perform their constitutional duties. This independence is very healthy for our democracy, and importantly provides another pivotal political institution that the executive cannot completely control.The Government should give some thought as to the benefit they could reap out of agreeing to the initiative in this Bill. As Michael Visontay argued in a column in The Australian (Tuesday, Feb 2 1999, p13):Surely it's not too late to ask the Government to include a second question. Howard managed to portray himself as an honest broker in the Constitutional Convention. If he adds a second question, then he won't have to worry about perceptions. And that's about as big a reward as a politician could ask for.At the root of all this is whether our federal politicians are firstly willing to trust the people. Secondly, whether they are willing to give them the option of fully expressing their will as to their preferred means of presidential accession. The conversion of Australia to a Republic should mark an increased willingness on the part of politicians, and particularly of the major parties, to open up our political institutions to greater democracy. This Bill seeks to take the first step down that progressive road.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned. Committees691569156915Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Crowley) agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 December 1999:Childbirth procedures, with particular reference to:(a) the range and provision of antenatal care services to ascertain whether interventions can be minimised through the development of best practice in antenatal screening standards;(b) the variation in childbirth practices between different hospitals and different states, particularly with respect to the level of interventions such as caesarean birth, episiotomy and epidural anaesthetics;(c) the variation in such procedures between public and private patients;(d) any variations in clinical outcomes associated with the variation in intervention rates, including peri-natal and maternal morality and morbidity indicators;(e) the best practices for safe and effective births being demonstrated in particular locations and models of care and the desirability of more general application;(f) early discharge programs, to ensure their appropriateness;(g) the adequacy of access, choice, models of care and clinical outcomes for rural and remote Australians, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and for women of non-English speaking backgrounds;(h) whether best practice guidelines are desirable, and, if so, how they should be developed and implemented;(i) the adequacy of information provided to expectant mothers and their families in relation to the choices for safe practice available to them; and(j) the impact of the new Medicare rebate provided for complex births, including the use of the term `qualified and unqualified neonates' for funding purposes, and the impact that this has had on improved patient care and reduction of average gap payments.Business69156915Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That standing order 110 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 to be passed without a roll call.Miscellaneous691615:45:006916Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 243 standing in my name for today, relating to the proposed appointment of a working party, be taken as a formal motion.Leave not granted.Miscellaneous6916Motion (by Senator Brown)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the Senate— (a) notes strong public opinion against the proposed freeway through Albury; and (b) requests the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Mr Anderson) to provide the Parliament with revised relative costings of the internal and external routes.Miscellaneous6916Motion (by Senator Cook)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the Senate calls on the Government to refer the following matters to the Review of Business Taxation as a matter of urgency for inquiry and report by 30 July 1999, in line with one of the review's key objectives of `providing a secure source of revenue':(a) the extent of the erosion of the `pay as you earn' (PAYE) tax base due to the growth in dependent contracting arrangements, including the use of company structures to receive payments for personal services, and the annual cost to revenue from such arrangements;(b) the impact of proposals in the Government's `A New Tax System' package, particularly those contained in A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 and the proposed new withholding tax arrangements, on the erosion of the PAYE tax base through the growth of dependent contracting arrangements;(c) the equity implications for businesses and their employees subject to the PAYE tax system compared to those operating through and with dependent contracting arrangements; and(d) measures to halt the erosion of the PAYE tax base caused by the growth of artificial dependent contracting arrangements. Committees691669166916Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke) agreed to:That clauses 4 and 5 of the resolution of appointment for the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy be suspended until a new member is appointed to the committee during the August 1999 sittings of the Senate.Business69166916Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the days of meeting of the Senate from 9 August for the remainder of 1999 be as follows:Monday, 9 August to Thursday, 12 AugustMonday, 23 August to Thursday, 26 AugustMonday, 30 August to Thursday, 2 SeptemberMonday, 20 September to Thursday, 23 SeptemberMonday, 27 September to Thursday, 30 SeptemberMonday, 11 October to Thursday, 14 OctoberMonday, 18 October to Thursday, 21 OctoberMonday, 22 November to Thursday, 25 NovemberMonday, 29 November to Thursday, 2 DecemberMonday, 6 December to Thursday, 9 December.6916Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That on Monday, 9 August 1999, the hours of meeting shall be 2 pm to 6.30 pm, and 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm.Miscellaneous6916Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the amendments to standing orders 76(1) and 67, adopted as temporary orders on 29 April 1999 and relating to the giving of notices of motion and the postponement of business, continue to have effect till 31 December 1999. Documents6917691710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present a committee report and documents which were presented to the President after the adjournment of the Senate on 29 June. The documents are listed in full on page 8 of today's Order of Business . In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, publication of the documents was authorised.15:49:006917Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—In respect of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998, I move:That the report be printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the government responses to committee reports incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The responses read as follows—COMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE SENATE WAS NOT SITTINGRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Report on the provisions of the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report) (presented to the President on 29 June 1999)GOVERNMENT RESPONSES PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE SENATE WAS NOT SITTINGLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Report on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 (presented to the President on 29 June 1999 )Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Report on the incidence of Ovine Johne's Disease in the Australian sheep flock—First report (presented to the President on 29 June 1999 )Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Report entitled Improving but . . . Australia's regional dialogue on human rights (presented to the President on 29 June 1999 )Government responses to Parliamentary committee reports—Response to the schedule tabled by the Deputy President of the Senate on 10 December 1998 (presented to the President on 29 June 1999)GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE SENATE WAS NOT SITTINGRequirements for Departmental Annual Reports (presented to the President on 29 June 1999)Government Response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) report entitled Those who've come across the seas—the detention of unauthorised arrivals (presented to the President on 29 June 1999)Employment, Education and Training Act 1988—National Board of Employment, Education and Training and its Australian Research Council—Advice on research of interest to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (presented to the President on 29 June 1999)REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE SENATE WAS NOT SITTINGReport no. 49 of 1998-99—Performance Audit—Staff reductions in the Australian Public Service (presented to the President on 29 June 1999)Senator Marise PayneChairSenate Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteeParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 260024 June 1999Dear Senator PayneI refer to the Committee's report on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 and the complementary Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998 which was tabled in the Senate on 19 February 1999. I am pleased to note that the majority of the Committee consider that the Bills should be passed without amendment.I set out below the Government's response to the other recommendations in the Committee's Report.Recommendation 1The committee concludes that in the course of the preceding inquiries and reviews, considerable opportunity has been provided for consultation on the proposed changes. The committee considers it important, however, that all parties involved have adequate opportunity to see the results of this process, and for this reason recommends that in the interest of transparency, the Ernst & Young and the KPMG reports should be publicly available.The Government has no objection to making the Ernst and Young Review publicly available. A copy has already been supplied to the Opposition parties and Independents in the Senate as well as the Opposition spokesperson on Attorney-General's matters.As it is primarily of interest to the clients of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) I have requested my Department to make the Review available to all organisations that made submissions to the Review (and which are identified in it) as well as to the bodies who gave evidence at the Committee's hearing on the Bills but who did not contribute to the Review. Further copies can be obtained from Ms Jill Baillie in my Department (telephone 02 6250 5930).The KPMG review referred to is ongoing and relates to the internal operations of the OFLC and no final report is yet available for public release. OFLC has advised that on commencement of the review KPMG sought industry input and that a report will be published on completion.Recommendation 2The committee recommends that in view of the broad concerns raised in the hearing and the submissions, the government examine in detail the issue of burden sharing between the film and television industries with a view to ensuring that the tax burden for classification services is shared equitably.The Government does not support this recommendation.As a matter of Government policy, a self-regulatory scheme applies to material broadcast on free-to-air television and Pay TV (which for convenience, I shall refer to as television) within the confines of a comprehensive over-arching legislative structure. The OFLC has not classified television programs since 1986.Classification of television programs is a matter for the individual stations in accordance with the classification scheme applied by the OFLC. All television programs are classified and different rules apply depending on the time-slot to be occupied by the program concerned.This involves a cost to the stations themselves which are also the first port of call for complaints from the public on content issues.While the data-base of classification decisions maintained by the OFLC is available to television classifiers, and no doubt assists with their decision-making, the responsibility for classification decisions for television programs remains on the classifiers and their stations. For example, material classified by the Classification Board may well require modification depending on the scheduling of it by the stations.Thus, while the Classification Board's classifications may provide a useful guide to television classifiers they are not, in many cases, automatically transferable to the medium of television.In the contrast to television, the material classified by the Classification Board covers a much broader range of material (cinema films, videos, computer games and publications) with a wider range of classifications and which is distributed and exhibited in a quite different market environment.In this respect it does not automatically follow, as appears to have been suggested by some witnesses who appeared before the Committee, that material that first appears on television would automatically receive the same classification if subsequently released for cinema or video purposes. This would depend on the nature of the material and whether it had been modified for television purposes. It must also be said that the collective opinion of the Classification Board in fulfilling its legislative requirements in making classification decisions may legitimately differ from the decision of an individual television classifier in making his or her decision for the broadcast medium. While the Board may confirm television classification for some children's programs, for example Bananas in Pyjamas, this is not always the case, for example episodes of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers series received a G classification for television broadcast but were classified PG by the Board for release on video.Recommendation 3The committee recommends that the issue of waivers and exemptions form part of the charter of the industry consultative body that will be established in the near future. It is considered that this body is the most appropriate forum for discussion of a detailed policy, as it will contain the expert knowledge of the industry itself.The Government supports the recommendation that a detailed policy regarding the issue of waivers and exemptions be discussed with industry although the exercise of the waiver power under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 will, of course, remain with the Director.Indeed, consultations are to occur in the near future with all sectors of the Industry that use the services of the OFLC about proposed amendments to the Commonwealth, State and Territory co-operative legislative scheme. These consultations will include issues relating to waivers and exemptions.Recommendation 4To ensure the effectiveness of this proposed industry consultative body, it is recommended that it be chaired by an industry representative, and report directly to the Attorney-General as the responsible minister, ensuring that industry has an effective avenue for maintaining the performance of the OFLC.The Government supports this recommendation except as it relates to the chair of the proposed industry consultative body.There is also a question about the structure of the industry consultative mechanism. For example, whether it should comprise a single consultative group or whether it should take the form of separate consultative groups for enforcement agencies and each of the industry sectors (cinema, video, computer games, and publications) serviced by the OFLC. This question raises a number of issues which require further consultation.As far as the chairing of the consultative group or groups is concerned, users of OFLC services have a legitimate role in ensuring that such services are provided in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner. However, this interest must not be allowed to interfere with the independence of the Classification Board in making classification decisions that reflect the standards generally accepted by the community.For this reason and in order to ensure that an appropriate overview can be maintained, I consider that the proposed consultative group or groups should be chaired by a Deputy Secretary in my Department in Canberra. This will also ensure that an appropriate separation is maintained between the interests of industry groups and those relating to the independence of the Classification Board and the public interest in the operations of the OFLC.Recommendation 5The committee concludes that within the context of the policy decision to recover the full cost of running the OFLC, it is inevitable that costs to the industry will rise, as is acknowledged in the Explanatory Memorandum. Evidence provided as to the relative cost of Australian classification services, under either the existing or proposed scale of fees, is inconclusive. Nevertheless, the committee recognises that this is an important issue, and one which should form part of the ongoing consultations between the industry and the OFLC. The committee recommends that this form one of the mandated tasks of the consultative body discussed above.The Government supports this recommendation.By way of observation, however, I should point out that it is not necessarily inevitable that costs to the industry will rise. The Schedule to the Charges Bill does, of course, increase the costs to the industry. As far as future increases are concerned, the costs associated with running the OFLC have remained fairly constant over recent years and, in fact, are estimated to fall slightly in the coming financial year. This trend is expected to continue. However, the difficulty is that there is no assurance as to the revenue to be generated from classification services in any one year. A small organisation like the OFLC has very limited capacity to reduce its cost base at short notice to accommodate reductions in workload. Any rise in future costs to industry is therefore expected to result primarily from a drop in revenue rather than from an increase in the operating costs of the OFLC.Yours sincerely(signed)DARYL WILLIAMSGOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REPORT OF THE SENATE RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCES COMMITTEE REPORT:`The Incidence of Ovine Johne's Disease in the Australian Sheep Flock—First Report'PreambleThe Government has considered the first report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on `The Incidence of Ovine Johne's Disease in the Australian Sheep Flock—First Report' and is pleased to provide the following response. The Government would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Committee in preparing a concise and clear first report which seeks to address a range of issues relating to the `The Incidence of Ovine Johne's Disease in the Australian Sheep Flock'. The Committee's recommendations are addressed in turn below. The Government notes that the Committee intends to continue their enquiry in 1999.Recommendation 11) The Commonwealth must ensure that adequate funds are made available to ensure an ongoing and effective OJD research effort can be maintained.The Government notes this recommendation of the Committee and advises that it has in place arrangements which provide funds for industry-nominated research projects on a matching dollar for dollar basis up to 0.5% of the Gross Value of Production (GVP) of the particular livestock sector annually. These arrangements are administered by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation (AWRAP). Additionally, the Government is funding related research being undertaken by CSIRO at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL).Recommendation 22) The Commonwealth considers any application for exceptional circumstances assistance arising from the effect of OJD as part of a regional assistance package.At this stage, it is considered premature to refer an Exceptional Circumstances application to the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC) for consideration.Commonwealth and State agriculture Ministers agreed, at the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) in July 1998, to progress a national joint government-industry approach to dealing with OJD, based on a Business Plan developed by the Australian Animal Health Council (AAHC). The strategy is to control the spread of OJD, while obtaining enough research to evaluate the feasibility of national eradication.A range of complex issues needs to be settled to effectively deal with OJD on a national basis, including Business Plan details regarding the strategy parameters, implementation mechanisms and associated financial arrangements.Until the national strategy is settled and some results become available from the research activities, especially on the issues of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of eradication, it is not possible for RASAC to be able to sensibly advise on the matter.Recommendation 3The Commonwealth, the state governments in Victoria and New South Wales and relevant local government authorities develop regional assistance packages based on the Rural Partnership program model for regions affected by OJD.Available funding for the Rural Partnership Program (RPP) is already committed to the twelve pilot projects now underway. RPP projects are designed to facilitate a holistic approach to a range of economic, natural resource management, environmental and social issues in a defined region. Strengths of the approach are its capacity to achieve broad based community commitment, cooperation between governments and the regional community and regional coordination of government programs to achieve agreed strategic outcomes. It is unclear that the broadly based RPP model could be successfully applied to the management of a single issue. OJD is not currently a major issue in existing RPP areas.Apart from the RPP (which is fully committed), the only program within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio that could support work on Ovine Johne's Disease is the Rural Plan initiative. The Rural Plan initiative is designed to support regional or industry groups to develop planning approaches to their future development. Rural Plan funding is allocated on a competitive basis and applications which have an overall strategic approach within a region or industry are favoured.Under new machinery of government arrangements, Rural Plan will be administered by the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Community and industry groups wishing to undertake a strategic planning process to complement the National Ovine Johne's Disease Control and Evaluation Program can prepare a proposal using the Rural Plan Guidelines and application form. Applications can be submitted any time up to March 2001 and are for a maximum of $200,000 over three years.Recommendation 4The Victorian government review the level of compensation paid to growers who were required to destock their properties in 1997 in the light of the economic analysis prepared by Mr Andrew Patterson from the Victorian department of Natural Resources and Environment".The Victorian Minister for Agriculture and Resources has advised the Commonwealth that he announced in early September 1998 an increase in compensation rates of approximately 80%. In making this increase, the Minister followed the recommendations of the Sheep and Goat Compensation Advisory Committee's review of the Victorian OJD Control Program and the economic analysis prepared for the Committee by Mr Andrew Paterson. The Minister also considered a joint submission from the VFF Pastoral Group and the Victorian OJD Action Group (of affected producers).The new levels of compensation apply retrospectively to all producers who have participated in the Victorian OJD control program since its establishment in 1996. In order to fund the increase in compensation the Victorian Government has agreed to an arrangement which limits an increase in stamp duty and allows the Sheep and Goat Compensation Fund to borrow from Treasury and repay over a period of 10 years.18 December 1998THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REPORT"IMPROVING BUT . . . . AUSTRALIA'S REGIONAL DIALOGUE ON HUMAN RIGHTS"IntroductionThe Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to comment on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on Australia's regional dialogue on human rights. The Committee's work has generated a valuable debate on questions which lie at the core of so many pressing problems in the region. It has also raised awareness of the range of ways by which the Government seeks to advance the cause of human rights. The Committee has correctly observed that there is a place for quiet diplomacy, at times, just as there are requirements occasionally for a more public stance by government as it promotes and protects human rights.The Government's emphasis on dialogue and its preference for practical policies that will make a real difference to the lives of individuals means that human rights activities are, by their nature, not always very visible on the domestic scene. Public discussion and scrutiny of its human rights policies and activities is thus particularly welcome. The response to the recommendations demonstrates that the Government is continuing to explore ways of translating its commitment to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the major human rights instruments into practical outcomes, including by improving the effectiveness of its regional dialogue.Recommendation 1The Australian Government give consideration to acceptance of the draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, provided that the final document is seen to complement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and not derogate from it.The drafting of a Declaration of Human Responsibilities by a group of former heads of government, including Mr Malcolm Fraser, was the result of an ambitious undertaking to identify universally applicable human responsibilities.It appears that, at least in its present form, the draft Declaration has not attracted the degree of support which would be required to put it before the relevant organs of the United Nations (UN) for possible endorsement by the international community. No member country has submitted the draft Declaration to the UN and unless or until that occurs, the question of formal government acceptance does not arise. Recommendation 2The Australian Government establish formal coordination mechanisms between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID and the new Centre for Democratic Institutions.The Australian National University (ANU) is contracted to AusAID to deliver the work of the Centre for Democratic Institutions (CDI). The CDI is working closely with and through AusAID and DFAT (including posts) to carry out its work. There is regular operational contact with officers of DFAT, AusAID and the CDI.A Consultative Group for the CDI has been appointed. It comprises approximately thirteen members who will provide overall guidance and advice to the CDI on broad policy and strategic directions. The Group, comprising eminent people from academic, business and civil society, will also include senior AusAID and DFAT representatives.Recommendation 3The Australian Government develop a Centre for Dialogue and Cooperation to be established outside traditional government and academic structures.Current priorities outlined elsewhere in this response take precedence over such a concept and the Government has no present plans to fund a Centre for Dialogue and Cooperation. Government effort in this area has focused on establishing and consolidating the Centre for Democratic Institutions (CDI), which will be working through bodies outside of government and academia in fulfilling its mandate. The CDI's focus includes working with NGOs. For example, it is currently planning joint courses with the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA).Recommendation 4AusAID increase the emphasis on human rights in the overseas aid program by including the following measures:(a) establishing a human rights policy for AusAID(b) introducing human rights training for AusAID staff; and(c) including the issue of human rights in policy dialogue between AusAID and aid recipients(a) The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, in the Eighth Annual Statement to Parliament on Australia's Development Cooperation Program (2 December 1998), outlined the following framework for supporting human rights through Australia's aid program:"The framework consists of six key principles.First, human rights are a high priority for the Government. Civil and political rights are ranked equally with economic, social and cultural rights.Secondly, the aid program will continue to undertake activities that directly address specific economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. A particular emphasis will be on the creation of durable institutional capacity to promote and protect human rights.Thirdly, the emphasis is on the practical and the attainable. AusAID, as the Government's aid agency, will pursue practical aid activities in support of human rights. These activities complement and build on high-level dialogue on human rights. Dialogue on human rights and representations about individual human rights cases will normally be carried through diplomatic channels.Fourthly, the aid program will develop activities primarily as a result of consultations and cooperation with partner countries on human rights initiatives. Regional and multilateral activities will also be undertaken.Fifthly, considerable care will continue to be applied to the use of aid sanctions associated with human rights concerns. The Government will consider such sanctions on a case-by-case basis. Aid conditionality based on human rights concerns would only be used in extreme circumstances since it can jeopardise the welfare of the poorest and it may be counter-productive.Sixthly, AusAID will continue to link closely with other arms of the Australian Government on governance and human rights issues. AusAID will also liaise with NGOs and human rights organisations in Australia.Practical action based on these principles means that the aid program will continue to focus on its objective of assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development. These principles will underpin our strong support for civil and political rights throughout our aid work. The aid program will seek to maximise the benefits for human rights in all development assistance activities."AusAID is currently finalising practical guidance for staff on putting these principles into operation and has consulted with relevant NGOs as part of the process.(b) AusAID is currently undertaking a program of governance training for the agency. Human rights is a key component of the training program, focusing on issues of particular relevance to AusAID staff and supporting implementation of the six key principles. Training commenced in March 1999. AusAID staff continue to have access to the DFAT human rights course.(c) Annual High Level Meetings between AusAID and counterpart government organisations, as well as on-going discussions involving aid staff overseas, provide avenues for offering practical assistance to improve human rights conditions on the ground in developing countries. AusAID will continue to take the opportunity provided by these meetings to explore extension of the aid program's portfolio of human rights-related activities with counterpart government organisations, and to indicate the importance the Australian Government attaches to human rights.The Government's high level policy dialogue with foreign governments on human rights generally, as well as representations about individual human rights cases, are usually carried out through diplomatic channels. This approach will continue. AusAID will continue to work closely with DFAT on practical initiatives to support this dialogue.Recommendation 5AusAID:(a) incorporate relevant international human rights instruments into program design;(b) develop a program of human rights education with aid recipient governments in the region; and(c) invite contribution from NGOs and consultants to assist in developing a policy on conditionality of aid. This policy should be explained to the recipient countries before the grant of aid.(a) Considerable work is being done by a number of aid donors to integrate development and human rights thinking. AusAID recognises the need to look carefully at the implications of international human rights instruments for development cooperation and welcomes dialogue with the NGO community on this. A clear understanding of the background to and objectives of these instruments, and of the obligations they create for States parties, is essential.The Australian aid program's focus on governance has strengthened the integration of human rights in the aid program, through its recognition that governments play a central role in determining the extent to which citizens can realise their human rights. Much of Australia's governance assistance is focused on helping partner governments develop and maintain institutions that are capable, accountable, committed to equity and that understand their human rights obligations. Such activities help build institutions and cultures that are consistent with the enjoyment of human rights.The aid program will continue to work towards ensuring that all development assistance activities have a positive human rights impact. Human rights considerations are taken into account in project design and implementation. As part of AusAID's regular program of sector reviews, human rights aspects of aid interventions will be assessed. Modifications to design and implementation procedures will be undertaken as necessary to enhance performance in this area. The range of international human rights instruments to which Australia is committed will provide the context for, and inform and guide, aid program involvement in human rights activities. As noted in the response to Recommendation 4, AusAID is finalising practical guidance for staff to assist implementation of this policy. As part of this process, AusAID has consulted human rights organisations and examined relevant information produced by other donors.(b) Human rights education is an important part of Australia's development assistance in the region. Technical assistance and education in the area of human rights is seen as an important tool for assisting countries to strengthen their capacity to promote and protect human rights. (c) Australia takes a cautious approach to the issue of conditionality. The primary aim of Australia's aid is to reduce poverty. Human rights abuses are an issue in some of the countries to which Australia provides aid. Some argue the level of aid should depend on respect for human rights and democracy in recipient countries. Conditionality needs to be used very carefully, since it can jeopardise the welfare of the poor and it may be counter-productive. Where serious and sustained human rights violations have occurred, Australia has withdrawn aid in concert with other donors. The Government has suspended bilateral aid to Burma given that country's poor record on human rights, but has continued assistance through non-governmental organisations to help minority peoples who have suffered under the regime. Violations are looked at on a case-by-case basis.Recommendation 6In respect of human rights dialogue with China:(a) the Australian Government consider the inclusion of an independent human rightsexpert in any future Australian delegations to China; and(b) the Australian Government liaise and coordinate, so far as practicable, with other countries engaged in bilateral dialogue with China on human rights.(a) The Australian delegation to the 1998 round of the human rights dialogue in Canberra included an independent expert from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and the Government would be looking to maintain that representation for this year's talks in China. Similarly, the Government would be looking to ensure that its consultations with community groups on China-related human rights issues are maintained in the future.(b) The Australian Government already liaises and coordinates with a range of other countries that are engaged in bilateral dialogue with China on human rights. Liaison ensures that there is minimal duplication of human rights technical assistance activities, and that the dialogue activities are based on the best available information about the evolving Chinese human rights environment. Effective liaison and coordination will play a major role in the effort to maximise China's engagement with the international community on human rights issues and, through this engagement, to assist on-the-ground change in the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law in China.Recommendation 7The Australian Government examine the possibility of playing a mediating role in respect of initiating dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama.The Government encourages dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama on terms acceptable to both sides. It has conveyed that view consistently, most recently during Mr Downer's meeting with Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan in Kuala Lumpur on 14 November 1998.The decision to commence a process of dialogue is, however, one for the parties directly involved to take. Until they reach agreement on such a process, encouragement remains the most productive contribution that others, like Australia, can make.Recommendation 8The Australian Government continue to pursue actively in its dealings with the new Indonesian Government its support for a solution to the difficulties in East Timor that is just, equitable and in the best interests of the people of East Timor.Events moved quickly in Indonesia and East Timor during and after the Committee's deliberations. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, wrote to President Habibie on 23 December 1998 setting out the Government's views on the future of East Timor. The letter stated that in the Government's view, the long term prospects for reconciliation would be best served by the holding of an act of self-determination at some future time, following a substantial period of autonomy. The Government also made clear its support for the release of Xanana Gusmao on the grounds that he has an important role in the negotiations on East Timor's future. This new policy was made known publicly on 12 January 1999.The Government has continued to work very actively to encourage a solution to the problems of East Timor, including through strong financial, logistical and other support for the UN consultation process, and ongoing dialogue with the Indonesian Government—including the Prime Minister's summit with President Habibie and Indonesian ministers in Bali on 27 April. In its dialogue with Indonesia, the Government has consistently emphasised its overriding interest in seeing a smooth and peaceful transition—whether to autonomy or independence—following the UN consultation. In its contacts both with the East Timorese and the Indonesian government, the Government has also emphasised the importance of a process of reconciliation between various East Timorese factions. It has urged the Indonesian authorities to respect human rights and to take measures that build confidence on the ground in East Timor. Indonesia's responsibility to end violence in East Timor, particularly through bringing the militias under control, has been raised consistently in this context.The Government recognises that substantial international resources will need to be made available to assist East Timor in its transition process to a new status, whether it be autonomy or independence. The Government has foreshadowed a significant commitment from Australia, including a $20 million contribution to the UN consultation process and the deployment of 50 Australian police to the UN civilian police force. Mr Downer has also encouraged other members of the international community (for example, EU countries) to respond generously. Assistance to East Timor—both in the short and long term—will continue to be a high priority for the Government for the foreseeable future. This is reflected in the establishment of an Australian Consulate in early June.Australia supports the establishment of an office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in East Timor. Through its contribution to the Indonesian National Commission of Human Rights, Komnas HAM (see below), which has an office in Dili, it is also helping in practical ways to resolve East Timor's human rights issues.Recommendation 9The Australian Government consider the inclusion of conditions relating to political reform and the observance of human rights in future development assistance to Indonesia.As noted in the response to Recommendation 5(c), Australia takes a cautious position on conditionality. The Government's approach to development aid is to target aid towards achieving particular reform goals, not make it conditional on achievement of these goals. Australia's development cooperation program funds a range of activities to promote human rights in Indonesia, both directly and indirectly. All of the economic development programs contribute to the realisation of economic and social rights, which are an integral part of human rights. In addition, Australia made an aid commitment of up to $2 million in technical assistance to support the protection and promotion of civil and political rights in Indonesia. The key activity being funded out of this contribution is a major program of technical assistance to the Indonesian National Commission of Human Rights, Komnas HAM, to strengthen its institutional capacity. The aim is to assist Komnas HAM in fulfilling its official mandate to protect and promote human rights, including following through Indonesia's National Action Plan on Human Rights launched on 25 June 1998.Other examples of assistance include assistance to Yayasan HAK, a community-based legal aid and human rights monitoring NGO in Dili; to the Dili Diocese Commission on Justice and Peace, for human rights monitoring and advocacy; and to the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) based in Jakarta. Funds for Indonesian NGOs in the broad area of good governance and civil society have also been made available through the Australia Indonesia Institute.Recommendation 10Consideration be given by the Australian Government to the possibility of using the human rights initiatives undertaken in Vietnam as a model for use in programs with other countries in the region.The initiatives taken in Vietnam, particularly the forging of links between the Human Rights Research Centre at the Ho Chi Minh National Political Academy and the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law at the University of Sydney, have benefited from being non-confrontational, from drawing on non-government expertise and from focusing on institutional capacity building. These principles have broader applicability in the region, although clearly the mode of technical cooperation will differ from one partner country to another.Partnerships with developing countries form the core of Australia's development cooperation program. Program activities are tailored specifically to the most pressing development needs of each country, via country strategies. These strategies consider Australia's development cooperation program in the broader context of each country's own development efforts and take into account the activities of other donors. The sectoral focus of the aid program (announced in "Better Aid for a Better Future", November 1997), which includes governance as one of five priority sectors, provides a mechanism for adapting approaches used in one country, such as Vietnam, to other countries. This will be done where Australia and the partner country in question agree that it meets the latter's particular development needs.Recommendation 11The Australian Government give consideration to including dialogue on human rights issues in its dialogue with Thailand, and in development assistance provided to Thailand.While human rights issues have always been an element of the dialogue between Australia and Thailand, they have been given greater priority in recent years and now form an important part of our dialogue. Australia has expressed support for Thailand's increased participation in the international human rights system, welcoming its moves to establish a National Human Rights Commission, its consideration of accession to key human rights instruments and its efforts to develop a coordinated approach to issues. (Pending the formation of a National Commission, a Committee under the direction of former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun is making policy recommendations to the Government.)These developments will provide scope for further cooperation with Thailand, including through Australian organisations such as the Centre for Democratic Institutions and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Government looks forward to expanding the bilateral dialogue and seeking opportunities to work with Thailand to build on its strong political commitment to human rights.In the governance sector, AusAID funds programs in selected areas to assist the Thai Government to implement its broad agenda on political and bureaucratic reform. This has included an intensive two week training program on public sector reform for senior Thai officials, run by the Public Sector and Merit Protection Commission. Other projects, related to the implementation of Thailand's new constitution, are being actively pursued.Recommendation 12The Australian Government raise the issue of inappropriate use of national security laws in its bilateral dialogue with countries in the region, and also at the UN Commission on Human Rights, with a view to the Commission establishing an investigation into such use and the development of guidelines setting out the circumstances in which their use would be justified.The Australian Government raises the issue of national security laws in its bilateral dialogue with countries in the region, where we think those laws have been used inappropriately to detain people for the peaceful expression of their political views. For example, the impact of national security laws on the protection of human rights was raised during the Australia-China human rights dialogue in Canberra in August 1998. Australia also made representations to the Chinese Government concerning the arrest, trial and sentencing of China Democracy Party activists in December 1998. Those activists had been convicted of offences endangering state security. Representations are regularly made to other governments (for example, the Governments of Laos and Vietnam) about persons adopted by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience. Australia has raised the issue of national security and human rights in multilateral forums, most recently in its statement on human rights questions to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 10 November 1998: "Australia is well aware of the depth of the financial crisis currently afflicting parts of the globe, especially in our own region. . . In times of economic pressure, it is vital that governments do not overlook basic rights such as freedom of religion and political expression, and that they use national security legislation in an appropriate manner."At the 55th session of the Commission on Human Rights, in April 1999, the Australian delegation co-sponsored a consensus resolution which deals with the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The resolution covers, inter alia, "the need to ensure that unjustified invocation of national security to restrict the right to freedom of expression and information does not take place" and refers to the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, as adopted by a group of experts in South Africa on 1 October 1995. The resolution expresses its concern at the number of cases in which violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression are facilitated and aggravated by several factors, including "too vague a definition of offences against State security".The Government also notes the existence of a consensus resolution at the Commission on Human Rights which deals with the question of arbitrary detention, including detention imposed inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international legal instruments accepted by the States concerned.Recommendation 13The Australian Government consider including human rights considerations in the assistance it provides to countries in the region in the wake of the Asian economic crisis.Human rights considerations are integral to the assistance the Government provides to countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The economic and accompanying social crises in the region have focused attention on fundamental rights and freedoms and the necessity for effective democracy and good governance to promote their realisation. The Government's emphasis on governance and capacity-building in its regional human rights dialogues, as well as on consultations and cooperation with partner countries in its development cooperation programs in the region, responds to these needs. For example, the Government is providing up to $675,000 over 3 years to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) to assist it in providing a secretariat for the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions. The Forum aims to build and maintain a strong network between national human rights institutions in the region, and to encourage regional governments, their administrative organs, NGOs and wider civil society to work in cooperation with national human rights institutions.The Government will continue to give priority to the strengthening of civil society. In recognition of the major social impact of the regional crisis, the Government is currently considering a range of further development cooperation activities in the social sphere, including ones specifically aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the region.Recommendation 14The Australian Government review the human rights implications of Australia's defence co-operation with other countries and establish guidelines which prohibit any defence co-operation which could contribute to the recipient forces internal security function.Australia conducts a wide range of defence cooperation activities with the region which are tailored to the needs of the country concerned. These include policy talks and high level visits, combined exercises, personnel attachments and exchanges, study visits, and training programs conducted in Australia and overseas. These activities help build confidence and enhance transparency in defence planning, thereby increasing understanding of each other's strategic perceptions and intentions. Furthermore, combined military exercises, training and operational deployments improve our capacity to operate with other defence forces and promote the development of each country's defence capabilities. This, in turn, reinforces the security of the region as a whole.The Government takes into account a number of factors when deciding the extent of cooperative defence activities with other countries. Factors include the strategic considerations outlined above, existing bilateral and multilateral commitments, economic considerations, the needs of the country concerned, as well as the country's human rights performance. The same considerations apply to defence exports. In all cases, our cooperative programs are tailored to avoid activities which may give rise to human rights concerns.Many regional countries, and especially Pacific Island countries, have armed forces that have both internal and external security roles. In certain countries, the defence force and the police force are combined in one security organisation. A blanket prohibition on defence cooperation which could contribute to the recipient force's internal security function would render any kind of defence cooperation with these countries impossible. For example, Australia would be unable to assist the Solomon Islands Defence Force in developing their basic weapons skills because this could possibly contribute to the internal security function. To a lesser extent, the same is true of the armed forces of many South East Asian countries. As these nations have developed over the past decade, the focus of their security forces has been moving from internal security to external security. However, many South East Asian security forces still have at least a vestigial internal role. Although Defence will continue to focus defence cooperation activities on external security roles, to put a complete stop to any defence cooperation that could possibly contribute to an internal security function would be very restrictive. Many cooperative defence activities involve generic skills and capabilities which could in theory be applied to external or internal security situations. While the Government endeavours to constrain cooperation to areas not likely to lead to human rights abuse, this ultimately comes down to a question of judgement.The Government believes its current policy on the provision of Defence Cooperation works well in balancing the range of our foreign policy and security interests. Where there are human rights concerns with particular regional countries, the ADF does not provide training or undertake other cooperative activities in skills designed to enhance internal security or counter-insurgency capabilities. For instance, this policy has meant that the Government is currently not planning any exercises with Indonesia's Special Forces except those concerned with counter-hijack training.Recommendation 15The Australian Government review the operations of its defence co-operation program with a view to providing assistance to the governments of regional countries in provision of training for the military in international human rights law.As noted in relation to Recommendation 14, the Australian Government has taken, and will continue to take, a principled position on human rights issues. The Government will continue to review the human rights implications of all cooperative defence activities with other countries.Technical assistance programs under defence cooperation agreements include training in international humanitarian law and its implications for defence personnel. Funding is provided for human rights training for the Indonesian defence forces.As regional countries develop national human rights institutions and other mechanisms for the promotion of human rights, opportunities will emerge for Australia to consider ways of building on these efforts.Recommendation 16The Australian Government consider evaluating the capacity of ASEAN and the ARF to play a role in the promotion and protection of human rights in the region, and where appropriate, advocate the assumption of such a role by those institutions.Thailand has in the past advocated the establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights Commission, and the Australian Government will take appropriate opportunities to encourage such a development, although it is not of course a member of ASEAN. Ultimately, that step depends on ASEAN consensus and would seem to be a longer term prospect.Australia attends meetings of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), a body created to promote regional security dialogue and cooperation. The Government will continue to raise human rights issues from time to time in the ARF, when they can be related to regional security and stability. For example, at ARF Ministerial Meetings, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, has stressed the importance of political reform in Burma and the need for a comprehensive and negotiated settlement between the Government of Burma and opposition groups. Some of the confidence building measures agreed to or being considered by the ARF, such as activities in the area of international humanitarian law and small arms, will also indirectly support the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.The Government believes that the strengthening of regional co-operation among national human rights institutions will provide an important building block in the eventual establishment of a regional human rights mechanism. The Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, established in Darwin in 1996, is making steady progress in this regard. The Forum currently has six members, including the human rights commissions of Indonesia and the Philippines. Thailand, Fiji, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia are actively engaged in the establishment of a human rights commission and the Australian Government has encouraged Burma to establish an independent commission.Recommendation 17The Australian Government review the procedures in place for complying with reporting obligations under international treaties and take steps to ensure that those obligations are met in as timely and complete a manner as possible.While fully up to date with its reporting obligations under most human rights (and ILO) treaties, there have been delays in preparing some reports in recent years. The Government is working towards meeting dead-lines in the future, but in doing so it does not want to compromise the high standards it adopts with respect to the preparation of reports. This involves extensive consultations with State and Territory governments as well as discussions with NGOs and other relevant interest groups.Many other countries have experienced difficulties in meeting reporting deadlines. Indeed the UN has recognised that treaty-reporting obligations place burdens not only on parties to the treaties but also upon the treaty committees, all of which have a considerable backlog of reports to consider. A report on the reform of the treaty body system by the Australian academic (and former Chairman of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) Professor Philip Alston makes several recommendations to render the process more efficient and effective. Australia strongly supports treaty body reform, including reform of the reporting process, and Australian delegations are pursuing this objective in relevant forums.Recommendation 18The Australian Government examine the possibility of enacting legislation to prohibit the engagement of Australians or Australian companies in exploitative child labour in other countries, and the import into Australia of goods made by exploitative child labour.Enacting domestic legislation to combat exploitative child labour in other countries and to control imports of goods allegedly produced by child labour is considered by the Government to be an ineffective means of tackling the problem. This view is based on the fact that these problems occur outside Australia's jurisdiction and the fear that such enactment would work to the detriment of children by driving the problem underground and forcing children into even more harmful situations. This concern is also supported by the conclusion of the ILO Tripartite Working Party on Labour Standards (1995). Import bans specifically targeted towards child labour, under existing Customs regulations, are considered similarly ineffective given the scarcity of accurate and reliable information and evidence.As noted below, (Recommendation 20) the Government has strongly supported the development by the International Labour Conference of new international labour standards addressing exploitative child labour and has been active in the negotiations on the texts. These instruments were adopted in June 1999.The Government believes the most effective remedies for exploitative child labour practices must be focused on root causes—primarily poverty and lack of education. This is most effectively achieved through broad based bilateral development assistance complemented by multilateral efforts which the Government will continue to pursue through its overseas aid program. In the meantime, the Government welcomes and supports voluntary corporate and consumer initiatives which endeavour to increase public awareness of exploitative child labour practices.Recommendation 19The Australian Government review the role of APEC in respect of social and human development, and Australia's participation in that role, with a view to raising in that forum the issue of human rights for workers.Australian ministers, including the Prime Minister, raise human rights issues where appropriate in relevant bilateral discussions in the margins of the APEC meetings. However the Government does not consider APEC itself to be an appropriate forum in which to raise human rights issues. It has an economic mandate focusing on trade and investment liberalisation, business facilitation, and economic and technical cooperation.Australia's view is that the ILO is the most appropriate forum for discussion of labour issues, and that the ILO's mandate and authority should not be diluted or duplicated in other forums. The ILO is tripartite in structure (with employer and worker representatives having equal representation and voting rights to government representatives), and thus provides a formal role in an international forum for workers.The application of core ILO standards is already being comprehensively supervised by the ILO (the ILO actively promotes ratification of its relevant Conventions, and members are asked to report on their implementation). Employer and worker organisations are invited to contribute to this reporting process, which was enshrined by the adoption of a Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up in June 1998 by the ILO. The Government strongly supported the adoption of the Declaration, and played an important role in ensuring that countries in the Asian region were able to support the proposed text.Recommendation 20The Australian Government review its participation in the International Labour Organisation, with a view to enhancing its support for the Organisation, particularly in its work on child labour.The Government already strongly supports the ILO. Mr Peter Reith, the then Minister for Industrial Relations, stated in response to a question without notice in Parliament on 2 May 1996:"The Government will, of course, retain its membership of the ILO. Australia has been a member of the ILO for many years. We have played a constructive role in the past; we will play a constructive role in the future. . . [however] against that background, the Government is grappling with a significant problem in respect of the budget."It was in the light of budgetary constraints that the cutbacks referred to by the ACTU (reflected in paragraph 6.71 of the JSCFADT report) were undertaken. The Government still plays an appropriately active role in the ILO, albeit a lower-key one than was previously the case. Australia pays its assessed contribution to the ILO promptly, which is appreciated by the ILO. Australia's 1999 contribution was assessed at SF 4.87 million ($A5.8 million paid in January 1999), which compares to SF4.93 million ($A5.3 million) for 1998. Australia pays 1.46% of the ILO's budget, and is the 12th highest contributor.Australia meets its ILO constitutional obligations, including reporting regularly on the application and implementation of ratified conventions and unratified instruments; and tabling the texts of new instruments in Parliament together with a report on action proposed to be taken in relation to the new instruments. Also in accordance with the ILO Constitution, the Government funds a delegation of government, employer and worker representatives to attend each session of the annual International Labour Conference in Geneva. At the Conference, the Government has actively participated in the development and adoption of new international labour standards, and will continue to do so. In 1998, government delegates played an important role in obtaining support for a text which was acceptable to all parties for the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and its follow-up.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business attended the 12th ILO Asian Regional Meeting in Bangkok from 9-11 December 1997, together with a delegation of government, employer and worker representatives. The meeting discussed ILO activities for the region for the following three to five years.With regard to work being carried out by the ILO to develop new international labour standards addressing exploitative child labour, the annual International Labour Conference held a first discussion on the subject in June 1998 and adopted new instruments in June 1999. The Government has strongly supported the development of these new standards and has actively participated in negotiations of the texts.Since 1992 the ILO has mounted a major offensive against child labour through its International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) by assisting member States in the implementation of national policy and programs to solve child labour problems. Following an earlier payment of US$50,000 in 1995, the Government, through AusAID, contributed a further $US50,000 to IPEC, funding a pilot project on bonded child labour in Nepal.Recommendation 21The Australian Government pursue the ratification of international instruments as a major objective of its human rights policy in the region and, in implementing that policy, provide relevant assistance in the form of expertise, grants and education, to those countries that seek to ratify and comply with those instruments.The Government takes opportunities to urge regional governments to sign and ratify human rights instruments. For example, in the context of Australia's human rights dialogue with China, the Government has encouraged China to sign and ratify the two international human rights covenants. Australia is also an active participant in the annual UN-sponsored Workshops on Regional Arrangements in the Asia-Pacific which places a strong emphasis on treaty ratification.The Government encouraged and welcomed Indonesia's publication of its National Action Plan, including its timetable for the signature and ratification of major human rights instruments. Indonesia's existing and projected treaty commitments will generate significant reporting responsibilities, and Australia has recently provided practical assistance in meeting that challenge. Two government-funded organisations, the Australia-Indonesia Institute and the Centre for Democratic Institutions cooperated in conducting a training course on treaty implementation, held in Jakarta in November/December 1998. About thirty Indonesians participated, mostly from ministries with responsibility for the process of drafting reports.The CDI is planning similar courses in Bangkok, Manila and in the Pacific. These courses will assist countries considering ratification of treaties by providing training on international reporting requirements and domestic implementation obligations.As part of the current focus on governance as one of five priority sectors of the development cooperation program, Australia stands ready to assist developing countries in their efforts to sign and ratify international human rights instruments. Opportunities for specific activities will be considered in the context of Australia's partnership approach to development cooperation, taking into account the specific needs of each partner country. The program is already funding activities to assist the establishment and development of national human rights institutions in the region and the work of these institutions will provide a stimulus to treaty ratification.Recommendation 22The Australian Government review its National Action Plan on human rights with the aims of auditing implementation of the Plan and establishing means by which Australia may assist and encourage other states in the region to draft and implement National Action Plans.On 9 December 1998 the Government announced its intention to revise Australia's National Action Plan on Human Rights. This revision has now begun, including the process of consultations. The new Plan is being developed by relevant Commonwealth Government departments and agencies, in consultation with a wide range of interest groups including State and Territory Governments; the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; and non-governmental organisations.The Government has encouraged and will continue to encourage other countries to develop National Action Plans, as it believes that such Plans can constitute a natural first step towards national capacity development in the field of human rights, as well as a valuable "check and balance" list for governments. Last year, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights made available resources for the implementation of a technical cooperation program for interested States in the Asia-Pacific region. Part of the program focuses on national action plans (the program was presented as a menu from which interested countries would be able to choose items of relevance to their needs). Australia will continue to encourage States in the region to make full use of the program, including in relation to the development of National Action Plans. Specific requests from developing countries in the region for assistance in drafting and/or implementing National Action Plans will be considered under Australia's development cooperation program.Recommendation 23The Australian Government both initiate its own proposals and give favourable consideration to outside proposals that accord with the United Nations guidelines and recommendations to mark the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education and the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.A number of special events were arranged to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) hosted a National Human Rights Conference on 8-10 December in Sydney with the theme "Human Rights, Human Values: What do we think now?". The Conference was addressed by both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General, as well as other Australian and foreign speakers, including Marzuki Darusman, Chairman of the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights and Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.In his speech, Mr Downer announced a series of government initiatives which will make further substantial contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights. These include guidelines to provide a clear and practical framework for supporting human rights activities through our aid contributions (see response to Recommendation 4); a revision of Australia's National Action Plan on Human Rights (see response to Recommendation 22); and a five-fold increase in the Human Rights Fund for 1998-99 compared with last year. Australia also provided $50,000 for the Assisting Communities Together (ACT) project developed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to mark the occasion.Australia Post issued a commemorative stamp on 22 October 1998 to mark the Anniversary. Displays of material about the Universal Declaration were featured in the reception areas of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General's Department during the Anniversary week. DFAT also produced a new edition of its Human Rights Manual. The Manual (first published in 1993) aims to foster a deeper understanding of human rights among government officials, particularly those who handle human rights as a part of their daily responsibilities either in Canberra or at overseas posts. An electronic version of the Manual can be found on the Department's human rights homepage at www.dfat.gov.au/hr/.The Government welcomes the opportunity provided by the United Nations Decade of Human Rights Education to underline the fundamental importance of human rights education as a valuable tool for protecting and promoting human rights. A contact group of government agencies, including the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and non-governmental organisations, has been considering for some time ways for Australia to respond to the Decade, including through the establishment of a National Committee on Human Rights Education. The idea of a National Committee, to develop a "National Plan of Action" for Australia, was first put forward by the Australian Forum of Human Rights Organisations. The proposal was endorsed by both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General, and on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the UDHR, the Attorney-General announced the selection of Dr Eric Tan (currently the Managing Director of Medical Corporation Australasia Ltd) as chairman of the National Committee. To assist in launching the Committee, the Government also provided $10,000 as "seed funding". This funding will give the Committee the support it needs to undertake the promotional work necessary to attract funding from other sources, including the business sector. Dr Tan has been focusing on the membership of the Committee and institutional linkages in his initial work. As a result, a number of prominent Australians have agreed to serve on the National Committee or as Expert Advisers to it.Consideration will also be given to proposals to mark the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education under AusAID's development education and public information program. This program aims to educate Australian school children and build an Australian constituency to promote development cooperation in developing countries.Recommendation 24The Australian Government ensure that the mandate for the Centre for Democratic Institutions allows for the establishment and maintenance of a focus on human rights generally, and dialogue on human rights in particular.The objective of the CDI is to assist the development and strengthening of democratic institutions in developing countries, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. To achieve this objective, the CDI will respond to the needs of developing countries in the field of good governance, and human rights will be addressed within that context. Many of the activities carried out or being planned by the CDI have a specific human rights focus, including a Human Rights Treaty Implementation course conducted in Jakarta and similar courses planned for Bangkok, Manila and in the Pacific.Recommendation 25The Australian Government give consideration to the appointment of an Ambassador for Human Rights with responsibility, among other things, for the development of policy and programs on the promotion and protection of human rights.There are precedents for appointing Ambassadors in particular fields where an operational need has required it. In the human rights arena, the Government is satisfied that existing arrangements are working well. Australia is represented at a senior level at key multilateral meetings and our posts in Geneva and New York devote considerable attention to human rights forums and issues. Diplomatic missions around the world report extensively on human rights issues and make representations as required. Australian Heads of Mission often make use of their high level contacts and their knowledge of the country to discuss issues of particular concern with their host governments. Likewise in Canberra, including in AusAID, senior officers are closely involved in policy formation and program development and have regular liaison with NGOs. The Government does not anticipate a need to alter these arrangements for as long as they continue to work well.Recommendation 26The Australian Government review its relationship with non-government organisations involved in human rights, including matters such as the adequacy of funding, and the degree of consultations and participation it offers.The Government recognises and strongly supports the role of civil society in the promotion and protection of human rights. Under current consultative arrangements, DFAT and AusAID officials hold twice yearly consultations with NGOs involved in human rights issues. The consultations last for one and a half days each and approximately 45 NGOs participate, discussing a range of issues with the Government and each other. As part of the consultations held in February 1999, an extra day was provided for additional discussions between NGOs and AusAID officials, to explore options for implementing the six framework principles for human rights in the aid program announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 2 December 1998 (see response to Recommendation 4).More broadly, AusAID and relevant NGOs consult through the Committee for Development Cooperation on policy and program issues. AusAID is currently developing a Policy Statement that will provide a new framework for the working relationship between the Government and NGOs in the development cooperation field. The aim is to foster a relationship that is as beneficial as possible for both parties and facilitates and promotes the best possible human rights outcomes in developing countries. The policy will reiterate the Government's view of NGOs as valuable development partners, and the importance of NGO participation in the aid program.A range of contacts between government officials and NGOs, including on the preparation of treaty reports, occur on an ad hoc basis and constitute valued input into government human rights activities.Other departments also consult NGOs with an interest in human rights questions. The Attorney-General's NGO Forum is a regular meeting allowing information exchange, and discussion of domestic human rights issues and developments, including Australia's treaty reports. The Forum first met in 1996 and subsequently on four other occasions.On the question of funding, AusAID provides grants and project funding to Australian NGOs that meet the criteria for accreditation with AusAID. Funds are provided for a wide range of activities, implemented by Australian NGOs in partnership with community-based organisations in developing countries. These include activities aimed at promoting human rights and strengthening civil society. The AusAID-NGO Cooperation Program provides accredited NGOs with considerable flexibility to identify development activities for AusAID matching funding. In 1998/99 the Program allocated around $23 million for Australian NGO activities, while total AusAID funding for Australian, international and indigenous NGOs for the same period is almost $103 million. Recommendation 27The Australian Government convene discussions with NGOs and the corporate sector with a view to establishing agreement on a co-operative approach to the promotion and protection on human rights, including the developing of voluntary codes of conduct for the protection of human rights.As noted immediately above, regular discussions between government departments and NGOs permit an exchange of views on the means to promote and protect human rights.On the question of voluntary codes of conduct, given that they will only be as effective as business and the community are willing to make them, the Government sees its role more in terms of responding to business and community initiatives rather than driving such a process. The Government notes that there is already a forum—the International Labour Affairs Committee (a sub-committee of the National Labour Consultative Council)—for Government, employers and employees to discuss labour issues.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The list read as follows—PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS AS AT 30 JUNE 1999PREFACEThis document continues the practice of presenting to the Senate twice each year a list of Government responses to Senate and joint committee reports as well as responses which remain outstanding.The practice of presenting this list to the Senate follows the resolution of the Senate of 14 March 1973 and the undertaking by successive governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in timely fashion. On 26 May 1978 the then Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) informed the Senate that within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister would make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposed to take in relation to the report. The period for responses was reduced from six months to three months in 1983 by the then incoming government. The then Leader of the Government in the Senate announced this change on 24 August 1983. The method of response continued to be by way of statement. Subsequently, on 16 October 1991 the former Government advised that responses to committee reports would be made by letter to a committee chairman, with the letter being tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The current Government in June 1996 affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports within three months of their presentation.The list does not usually include reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works or the following Senate Standing Committees: Appropriations and Staffing, Selection of Bills, Privileges, Procedure, Publications, Regulations and Ordinances and Scrutiny of Bills. However, such reports will be included if they require a response. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes which are tabled by the committee. Where a response has been made by way of Finance Minute, the date of presentation has been appropriately annotated.Legislation committees report on bills and on the provisions of bills. Only those reports in this category that make recommendations which cannot readily be implemented through the bill, and therefore require a response, are listed. The list also does not include reports by legislation committees on estimates or scrutiny of annual reports.A guide to the legend used in the `Date response presented/made to the Senate' column** See document tabled in the Senate on 30 June 1999, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the schedule tabled by the Deputy President on 10 December 1998 , for Government interim/final response. A New Tax System (Senate Select)First Report—February 199918.2.99-NoMain Report—April 199919.4.99-Time not expiredReport on Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements Bills, Luxury Car Tax Bills and Wine Equalisation Bills30.4.99-Time not expired Australian Security Intelligence Organization (Joint Statutory)Advisory Report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 199913.5.99Not required- Community Affairs ReferencesAccess to medical records26.6.97**(interim)NoPublic dental services in Australia 28.5.9829.4.99NoChild care funding9.12.98**(interim)NoThe Lucky Country Goes Begging—Report on the GST and the New Tax System 30.3.99-Time not expired Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies (Senate Select)Overseas sourced audiotext services, video and computer games, r-rated material on pay TV29.6.94**(final)NoRegulation of computer on-line services,part 230.11.95**(final)NoPortrayal of violence in the electronic media13.2.9715.2.99 (presented 10.12.98)NoRegulation of computer on-line services,part 326.6.97**(final)No Corporations and Securities (Joint Statutory)Provisions of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 199812.5.99-Time not expired Economics ReferencesReview of the Inquiry into outworkers in the garment industry2.7.9828.6.99 (presented 25.6.99)NoCreating opportunities: promoting Australian industry10.11.98(prese nted 22.7.98)15.2.99 (presented 10.12.98)Yes Employment, Education and Training ReferencesA class act: inquiry into the status of teachers and development of the teaching profession31.3.98**(interim)No Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and ReferencesReport of the Inquiry into the GST and A New Tax System31.3.99-Time not expired Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts ReferencesAccess to heritage: user charges in museums, art galleries and national parks11.7.98**(interim)No Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts ReferencesInquiry into the GST and A New Tax System29.3.99-NoReport on the powers of the Commonwealth in environment protection and ecologically-sustainable development in Australia27.5.99-Time not expiredReport on the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal30.6.99-Time not expired Finance and Public Administration ReferencesProperty management in the Australian Public Service29.6.95**(final)No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint)Defence Sub-committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence properties, 14 November 199723.3.98**(interim)NoAustralia and ASEAN: Managing change6.4.98**(interim)NoFunding of Australia's Defence8.5.98**(interim)No Improving but. . . Australia's regional dialogue on human rights29.6.9830.6.99 (presented 29.6.99)NoAustralia's trade relationship with India29.6.98**(interim)NoReport on the loss of HMAS Sydney22.3.99-NoInterim Report—Visit to Bougainville, 15-18 March 1999 31.3.99Not required-Military justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force21.6.99-Time not expired Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ReferencesReport on nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in south Asia30.6.99-Time not expired Information Technologies (Senate Select)Report on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill11.5.99Not required- Legal and Constitutional LegislationCopyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 19971.4.9828.6.99 (presented 25.6.99)NoClassification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Charges Bill 1998 and the complementary Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 1998.19.2.9930.6.99 (presented 29.6.99)No Legal and Constitutional ReferencesInquiry into the Commonwealth's actions in relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Commonwealth and Flint30.4.96 (presented 29.4.96)**(interim)NoInquiry into the Australian legal aid system,3rd report25.6.98**(interim)NoInquiry into sexuality discrimination2.12.97**(interim)NoPrivacy and the Private Sector: Inquiry into privacy issues, including the Privacy Amendment Bill 199825.3.99-No Migration (Joint Standing)Australia's visa system for visitors30.4.96 (presented 27.1.96)**(interim)NoWorking holiday makers: more than tourists3.9.97**(interim)NoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29.6.98**(interim)NoImmigration detention centres inspection report10.11.98 (presented 27.8.98)-NoReview of Migration Regulation 4.31B31.5.99-Time not expired National Capital and External Territories (Joint Standing)Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territories22.3.99-No National Crime Authority (Joint Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority 6.4.98**(interim)No Public Accounts and Audit (Joint Statutory)Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait Island Councils: Review of financial accountability requirements (Report No 355)25.11.9718.2.99, Finance minute 11.3.99NoTax Law Improvement Bill (No 2) 1997 (Report No 356)12.3.98**(final)NoThe Jindalee Operational Radar Network Project (Report No 357)24.3.98Finance minute 11.3.99NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97,Third quarter (Report No 358)31.3.98Finance minute 11.3.99NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97,Fourth quarter (Report No 359)31.3.98Finance minute 11.3.99NoInternet commerce. . . To buy or not to buy? (Report No 360)24.6.98Finance minute 11.3.99NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98,First quarter (Report No 361)25.6.98Finance minute 11.3.99NoAsset management by Commonwealth agencies (Report No 363)10.11.98 (presented 17.7.98)Finance minute 11.3.99 (interim)NoAdvisory Report on the delayed provisions of the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 (Report No 364)21.12.98-NoAnnual Report 1997-98 (Report No 365)11.3.99-NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98, Second quarter (Report No 366)30.3.99-Time not expiredReview of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98, Third quarter (Report No 367)30.3.99-Time not expiredDraft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 1999-200011.5.99Not required-Review of Audit Report No. 34, 1997-98: New Submarine Project, Department of Defence (Report No 368)9.6.99-Time not expiredAustralian government procurement (Report No 369) 30.6.99-Time not expired Publications (Joint) Future of the parliamentary papers series2.12.9710.11.98 (Presiding Officer's) 11.3.99 (Government)No Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport ReferencesCommercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife30.6.98**(interim)NoIncidence of Ovine Johne's disease in the Australian sheep flock (First report)2.7.9830.6.99 (presented 29.6.99)NoReport on matters referred to the Committee during the 38th Parliament (Landcare Policies and Programs)18.2.99Not required-The Effect of Pricing and Slot Management Arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on Regional Airlines Communities31.3.99-Time not expired Scrutiny of BillsThe appropriate basis for penalty provisions in legislation comparable to the Productivity Commission Bill 1996 (8th report)24.6.9828.6.99 (presented 25.6.99)No Superannuation (Senate Select)Super guarantee, its track record (15th report)8.2.9529.3.99 (presented 25.3.99)NoSuper and broken work patterns (17th report)28.11.9529.3.99 (presented 25.3.99)NoResolving superannuation complaints (31st report)12.7.98**(interim)No Treaties (Joint)Treaties tabled on 18 March and 13 May 1997 (8th report)23.6.97**(interim)NoAgreement with Kasakstan, Treaties tabled on 30 September 1997 and 21 October 199724.11.97-No Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty (12th report)1.12.97**(interim)NoMultilateral agreement on investment,Interim report (14th report)1.6.9811.3.99NoTreaties tabled 1 April and 12, 13 and 26 May 1998 (15th report)2.7.98**(interim)NoOECD Convention on Combating Bribery and Draft Implementing Legislation (16th report)2.7.9811.3.99No UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (17th report)10.11.98 (presented 28.8.98)**(interim)NoMultilateral Agreement on Investment: Final Report (18th Report)22.3.99-NoThe Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services and Five Treaties tabled on 30 June 1998 (19th Report)23.3.99-NoTwo Treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and Treaties tabled on 11 November 1998 (20th Report)29.3.99-NoFive Treaties tabled on 16 February 1999 (21st Report)7.6.99-Time not expiredFive Treaties tabled on 11 May 1999 (22nd Report)28.6.99-Time not expiredMiscellaneous6937693710000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present a response from the Minister for Health and Aged Care to a resolution of the Senate of 17 February relating to drug use by young people.Miscellaneous6937693715:51:006937Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a corrigendum to the portfolio budget statements 1999-2000 for the Family and Community Services portfolio. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.Documents6937693715:51:006937Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table the following documents:Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Second Sydney Airport Proposal—Auditor's Report, June 1999Schedule of Special Purpose Flights, June to December 1998 and erratum. Ordered that the documents be listed on the Notice Paper under Consideration of Government Documents as separate orders of the day.Committees69376937693715:51:006937Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in South Asia, together with submissions and the Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report, to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard and to say a few brief words of thanks.Leave granted.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I thank the secretariat for their assistance in the compilation of the report. I also wish to thank those people who participated in the hearing, particularly Senator Cook, Senator Margetts and Senator Lightfoot, who showed a particular interest in the inquiry.The statement read as follows—In May 1998, India and Pakistan each conducted a series of nuclear tests.The Senate referred the matter of the tests and the Indian and Pakistani nuclear and ballistic missile programs to the Committee for consideration of their implications for regional and international security. The Committee was also required to consider the Australian Government's role in international efforts to constrain these programs.The Committee received 46 written submissions during the inquiry and conducted hearings in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.India had refrained from nuclear testing since 1974. Although it had been on the brink of conducting nuclear tests in recent years, the timing of the Indian 1998 tests appears to have been determined largely by domestic political considerations. Although considerable international pressure was put on Pakistan not to follow India's lead, the Pakistani Government eventually succumbed to domestic political and security considerations.The international community condemned the tests and urged both India and Pakistan to forsake the nuclear path and join the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Many countries, including Australia, imposed a range of sanctions on both India and Pakistan.Australia adopted a bipartisan approach to the South Asian nuclear tests, denouncing the tests in forceful terms. The Australian Government imposed a range of sanctions on India and Pakistan, including suspension of high-level bilateral dialogue, non-humanitarian aid and various defence relationships. In late 1998, the Government decided to reinstate high-level bilateral dialogue with India and Pakistan but to maintain the other sanctions in place.The Committee received considerable evidence supporting the reinstatement of the defence advisers appointed to India and Pakistan and the bilateral defence educational and training programs, which had been suspended by the tests. The Committee recommends their reinstatement but not, for the time being, other defence-related measures.The Indian nuclear program was established as a result of a perceived threat from China following a border war between the two countries in 1962 and China's detonation of a nuclear device in 1964. Over the last decade, relations between India and China had been improving, notwithstanding Indian perceptions of a Chinese encirclement of India and of Chinese assistance with Pakistan's nuclear, missile and conventional weapon programs. The Indian Defence Minister's anti-Chinese rhetoric prior to the tests and the tests themselves have not provoked any particular reaction from China. The state of the bilateral relationship does not therefore give rise to any particular concerns about possible armed conflict between them.On the other hand, relations between India and Pakistan have remained tense ever since Partition in 1947. This tension has resulted in three wars between the two states. Two were fought over Kashmir. In the third, India helped East Pakistan to separate from West Pakistan to become Bangladesh.The enmity and deep divisions that characterise relations between India and Pakistan are not going to be resolved in the short term. The bitterness and political and social differences are too entrenched for that to happen. That is not to say, however, that some amelioration in the relationship cannot be achieved, provided that both sides are prepared to work towards that end. Kashmir is by no means the extent of the differences between the two states but it is a key issue.Unfortunately, India and Pakistan cannot even agree on the modalities for negotiating a settlement of the Kashmir problem. India maintains that the dispute is a bilateral issue and has refused to accept any attempt at mediation by third parties, including the United Nations. Pakistan, on the other hand, has sought United Nations involvement in the negotiations. This basic disagreement epitomises the difficulties of reconciling differences between the two sides, especially when both territorial and religious issues are involved.The hardened attitudes on both sides should not deter the international community from at least encouraging them to begin taking steps that might reduce tensions. It is noteworthy that a settlement was finally achieved in Northern Ireland in 1998 after decades of sectarian violence and bitterness.Australia has played significant roles in multilateral economic and security matters over the last decade, and it should use that experience in discussions with India and Pakistan to try to achieve some reduction in tensions in South Asia and avert a security crisis.Australia and the international community should also continue to urge India and Pakistan to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The treaty cannot enter into force until 44 specified states, including India and Pakistan, have ratified it. Both countries have indicated that they support the CTBT in principle.When tensions run high, there is always the possibility of an incident occurring that might lead to an accidental, inadvertent or miscalculated use of nuclear weapons. The lessening of tensions is therefore a key objective for the international community. High tensions combined with relatively unsophisticated command and control systems, vulnerable nuclear capabilities and short distances to potential targets do not provide any margin for error. Until the political climate between the two sides improves, it is important for measures to be taken to avoid the possibility of inadvertent use.In discussions with the Indian and Pakistani Governments, Australia and the international community should stress the importance of keeping their nuclear weapons in a non-alert state and not have them deployed. Nuclear warheads should also be kept separate from delivery vehicles. These measures should go along way to minimise the accidental or inadvertent use of nuclear weapons.In addition to the above measures, both India and Pakistan should re-assert commitments not to strike at each other's nuclear facilities.At the time the NPT was negotiated, five states had declared their nuclear weapon capability but many others were nuclear weapon capable states, threshold states or interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. There was a widespread view that proliferation would increase the risk of accidental, inadvertent or miscalculated use of nuclear weapons as well as the risk of such weapons or fissile material getting into the hands of terrorists or rogue states. The NPT was designed to reduce those risks by stemming proliferation of nuclear weapons.The non-nuclear weapon states agreed to waive their rights to acquire nuclear weapons on the basis that the nuclear weapon states undertook in good faith to move towards disarmament. Under Article VI of the NPT, the nuclear weapon states are already legally obliged to eliminate their nuclear weapons. The text of Article VI provides that:Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.Once the constraints of the cold War were removed, it was expected that the nuclear weapon states would keep faith with their commitments under the NPT. Although some movement towards disarmament has been recorded since the end of the Cold War, it has not been enough to satisfy many non-nuclear weapon states. This disenchantment with the performance of the nuclear weapon states has coalesced in the form of the New Agenda Coalition. The main goal of the Coalition is to negotiate a disarmament treaty, which is being resisted by the nuclear weapon states.In view of its arms control and disarmament credentials and as an ally of the United States, the Committee believes Australia is well placed to play a creative role in nuclear weapon disarmament. It could play, for example, an innovative brokering type of role between the nuclear weapon states and the New Agenda Coalition as it did in negotiations for the Chemical Weapons Convention and the CTBT. The growing dissatisfaction with the recent lack of progress cannot be ignored. Unless the nuclear weapon states continue to move discernibly towards nuclear disarmament to placate the many dissatisfied non-nuclear weapon states, the NPT itself may come under pressure.The Committee believes that the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons made such a valuable contribution to the debate on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament that its report warrants further consideration. The lack of a timetable is the key point in the Report as it does not provide an unrealistic and unachievable commitment, which the nuclear weapon states could legitimately use as a basis for not supporting it.While the nuclear weapon states are perceived by many non-nuclear weapon states as not acting in good faith towards nuclear disarmament, India and Pakistan are given an excuse for not disbanding their nuclear weapon programs. Notwithstanding the renunciation by most states of nuclear weapons for their security, insistence on the part of the five nuclear weapon states that nuclear weapons are still necessary for their security enables India and Pakistan to mount a similar case.The Canberra Commission Report provides a framework for universal nuclear disarmament, including possessors of nuclear weapons that are not NPT nuclear weapon states. As all members of the NPT have made a commitment to universal nuclear disarmament, the formal adoption of the recommendations of the Canberra Commission by the United Nations General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament is in line with that commitment. It would send a clear signal to all possessors of nuclear weapons that the international community wants all of them to dismantle their arsenals.The Committee therefore recommends that the Australian Government seek formal adoption of the recommendations of the Canberra Commission through appropriate resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and the Conference on Disarmament.Finally, I should like to thank all the people who contributed to the committee's inquiry, especially those who made submissions or provided other information and those who appeared at public hearings.15:53:006939Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I rise to speak to this motion. It has been a very interesting inquiry, and it took place over some time. Honourable senators will realise that the first and second Indian nuclear tests took place followed by the Pakistan nuclear test, so in a way the reasons for the inquiry gathered momentum as the concern about the arms race within the South Asia region gathered momentum.This foreign affairs committee provided an opportunity for senators from the various participating parties to listen to information that we do not normally have access to. There have been reports written in this parliament about Australia's relationship with India, and there have been reports about situations within Asia at various stages, but they tended to be about a particular country and its bilateral relationship with Australia, mostly trade related. But here we had a situation where, as a committee, we were forced to look at strategic issues within the region of South Asia. I do not want to speak for members of the committee on this issue but, for me, it was certainly a very educative experience to hear evidence that challenged many assumptions and the information put to the committee by our own Department of Foreign Affairs about the strategic issues, their importance and where Australia fitted in. It included the issues of whether or not the main concern for India was Pakistan, or whether India's concerns were about its position within the region—with China via Pakistan—given that both of those countries share borders with India and there are traditional issues in relation to security from both of those areas.I would like to stop here and say that I believe the report was a very well researched report. There was a lot of work put into it and, because it did take over a certain amount of time, it was perhaps one of those occasions when the secretariat got a better chance to catch up and integrate a lot of that wide experience that was given to the committee from a very wide range of sources. So we got a very good report which started off with a good historical context in which to consider the relationship between India and Pakistan; India and other countries in South Asia, including China; and where Australia fitted into that.It would not surprise honourable senators that I feel that the position of the committee could have been even stronger. My recommendation continues that Australia should be taking a much stronger role in relieving some of the security tensions within the region. In the past I have talked about trade being an issue that sometimes creates tensions, but in this particular case I believe that we must not forget that the various security issues are interconnected. It might be that, for a range of reasons, India feel that they have been ignored by the international community. My personal opinion is that India took the very difficult step during the Cold War of being one of the few unaligned nations.Though I think it is quite possible that India at times played off the Western alliance with the Eastern bloc—and that is a very difficult position to take—with the demise of the influence of the former Soviet Union, I believe that in some cases the way India is being treated these days is a bit of a payback. There is no other superpower like the Soviet Union to back up India and I think that some of the ways that India has been treated, considering how large an economy it is, how many people it has and how important it is for people to cite India as a market, has shown a kind of payback mentality; and I was very concerned about the ramifications of that.Some people have suggested that India perhaps conducted nuclear testing to get a seat at the international table, but I have to say that, considering the level of public debate within India, the inquiry showed it was more than that. Whether or not we or other people in Australia consider that the security concerns of India are real, we have to at least concede that the perceptions of security concerns within India are definitely real, and obviously within Pakistan as well.But there are other issues at play. I would like to see Australia playing a positive role in finding out more about the region instead of assuming we know everything and putting back resources into peace studies and into learning about South Asia, cultural studies and even language studies, and making sure we understand them. I am glad the committee has taken up those recommendations.I would go further and say that part of the information that I have received over time, and which was presented to the committee, indicates that Australia could play a much more positive role in the international disarmament fora. I know that the role Australia plays is often talked about, but I think we have a unique opportunity to take a positive role in the new agenda coalition—that is, the exciting new prospect of working towards global disarmament. I think perhaps of more concern is that there is a very real threat that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty might fail at the next negotiations.Part of the reason for this potential failure is that there is great concern amongst either non-nuclear states or threshold states that it is a nuclear weapons club and that those who have them have no real intention of giving them up. We are well aware of the fact that various treaties, including the START treaty, have reduced some categories of nuclear weapons but at the same time those same nations have continued with subthreshold testing, and other forms of modelling, and have continued to develop new nuclear weapons. So they are not giving up their weapons. Some of the weapons have reached their use-by date and some are less than useful in the current security environment.Quite frankly, a lot of the rest of the world is becoming very impatient and I think this is probably one of the greatest risks. I know that India, and I note from this report countries like Indonesia, have expressed a strong desire for those positive measures to be taken. I am not sure that Pakistan would sign up, I do not think anyone is. There are a lot of people who said we could not reach a more positive role in relation to the land mines convention and yet the force of conviction of so many ordinary people throughout the world has meant that we have progressed in this instance.I would like to think that the best and most positive measure that we have seen in some time—that is, the middle powers initiative or the new agenda coalition—should be supported by Australia and the United Nations. Australia made, I guess, one step in the right direction: we abstained last time along with NATO, and that is significant as well. It is something that really can be achieved and I would like to think that it is something positive that can happen in the future.As for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think we have to rethink our position. It has been considered that we ought to be taking more seriously pushing the rest of the world to take that intermediate step—that is, to implement the recommendations of the Canberra Commission. Everyone may recall the jostling on either side, like I could not believe, when the French nuclear testing was on for each of the two major parties to declare how much more antinuclear they were than the other or, perhaps, how much more anti-French nuclear testing they were than the other. But out of that came the concept of the Canberra Commission and that gave Australia quite a lot of credibility.What we have got to do now, if we recall how enthusiastic both parties were about those issues at the time, is follow that through and make sure that even those intermediate steps are promoted in the international fora. We should also try to save the disarmament process and not just be comfortable with presenting and fighting for the views of the major nuclear powers, because that is not giving Australia as much credibility as it is assumed within this place.As I said, I would very much like to thank the committee secretariat for the hard work that has been put in in presenting this report. I think it is a very important report. As I say, it is not one of those issues that is widely debated within this parliament but for me it was one of the more interesting committees of inquiry that I have been involved with, and I hope that it plays some part in moving us forward in regional security.Question resolved in the affirmative.69416941Senator FERGUSON (South Australia) (South Australia) (4.03 p.m.)—On behalf of Senator O'Chee, I present the usual end of sittings statement of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, on the work of the committee during the autumn and winter sittings. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Statement on the work of the Committee during the Autumn and Winter sittingsDuring the present sittings the Committee scrutinised the usual large number of disallowable legislative instruments tabled in the Senate, made under the authority of scores of enabling Acts administered through virtually every Department of State. Almost every legislative scheme relies on delegated legislation to provide the administrative details of programs set out in broad policy in enabling Acts which authorise such delegated legislation.The Committee acts on behalf of the Senate to scrutinise each of these instruments to ensure that they conform to the same high standards of parliamentary propriety and personal rights which the Senate applies to Acts. If the Committee detects any breach of these standards it writes to the Minister or other law-maker in respect of the apparent defect, asking that the instrument be amended or an explanation provided. If the breach appears serious then the Chairman of the Committee gives notice of a motion of disallowance in respect of the instrument. This allows the Senate, if it wishes, to disallow the instrument. This ultimate step is rarely necessary, however, as Ministers almost invariably take action which satisfies the Committee.As usual, by the end of the sittings Ministers have given the Committee undertakings to amend many provisions in different instruments or enabling Acts to meet its concerns, reflecting a continuing high level of cooperation from Ministers in its non-partisan operations. The Committee is grateful for this cooperation.During the sittings the Committee scrutinised 964 instruments. Of these, 167 were statutory rules, which are generally better drafted and presented than other series of delegated legislation. The other 797 instruments were the usual heterogeneous collection of different series.Each of the 964 instruments was scrutinised by the Committee under its four principles, or terms of reference, which are included in the Standing Orders. There were 104 prima facie defects or matters worthy of comment in those 964 instruments. The defects are described below under each of the four principles.Principle (a): Is delegated legislation in accordance with the statute?The Committee interprets this principle broadly. Together with the Committee's fourth principle, it covers not only technical validity, but also every other aspect of parliamentary propriety. The Committee noted that there may have been problems with instruments for the following reasons. ValidityIt is a fundamental requirement of legislative instruments that they should be validly made. Three instruments were expressed to commence before gazettal and were therefore invalid under the relevant statutory safeguards if they adversely affected any person other than the Commonwealth. Two of these instruments appeared to do this and in the third it was not apparent whether it did or not. Three other instruments appeared to exceed the statutory power under which they were made. One of them gave power to the CEO of an agency to make declarations in relation to two matters although the enabling Act expressly required these matters to be prescribed by regulation. Another instrument purported to exercise enabling powers to fix charges by providing merely that charges will cover costs. Another provided that the CEO may exempt in advance conduct which has not yet been declared to be subject to sanctions and in effect to amend the regulations.Another general statutory safeguard provides that legislative instruments may only incorporate material apart from Acts and other instruments which is in existence at the time when the instrument comes into effect. This may have caused problems in relation to one instrument which provided for criteria established by the Prime Minister for performance bonuses for departmental secretaries. Another instrument provided for performance remuneration in accordance with criteria to be established by guidelines.Parliamentary proprietyThe Committee ensures that legislative instruments do not breach parliamentary propriety. A legislative instrument providing for radiation protection and nuclear safeguards provided for a number of important reports with no express requirement that these must be tabled in Parliament. The same instrument provided for declarations which were subject only to gazettal and not to tabling. Another instrument provided for material which should have been subject not only to tabling but also to disallowance.The Explanatory Statement for one instrument advised that prior to the instrument certain international airline capacity was allocated de facto by the departmental secretary, which implied that it had been done without legislative authority. Another instrument reduced from six months to four the period within which certain superannuation funds must lodge annual returns. Three weeks later another instrument generally restored the six months period as a transitional measure. Later another instrument extended the transitional period for 12 months. The Committee questioned the need for this constant legislative change. One instrument provided for the members of a statutory council and committee to be appointed for any period of no longer than three years. The Committee asked whether these relatively short spans of membership may be an impediment to independent advice being provided to the Minister. Another instrument provided not only for appointment of members to the Complementary Medicine Evaluation Council for any period of up to three years, no matter how short, but also for the Minister to nominate expert advisers to the CMEC. This latter power appeared to be undesirable because another provision permitted the CMEC itself to seek advice from any person. These measures may have affected the independence of the CMEC.One set of regulations made by the Governor-General was printed with an error of 10 months in the making date. A proclamation by the Governor-General was notified in two separate gazettes. One instrument provided for people to be authorised to exercise significant functions but gave no indication of the qualifications or attributes which such people should possess. One instrument provided for the Secretary to delegate important powers to any officer of the department or any staff member of an agency, no matter how junior.Seven principal regulations were amended on the same day by two, and in one case three, sets of amending regulations. The Committee asked about this apparently unnecessary legislative duplication. In a similar case a consolidating instrument was made less than three weeks after an amendment.DelayThe Committee questions any apparent unjustified delay in making a legislative instrument. The enabling Act required Plans of Management for National Parks to be gazetted as soon as practicable after they have come into operation, so that any interested person may inspect or purchase a copy of the Plan. The Plan for one Marine Park came into operation on 25 June 1996 but it was not gazetted until 31 March 1999, one year before it is to cease. The gazettal of a heritage protection declaration was delayed for seven weeks. One instrument was not made until eight months after an Act had come into effect although it appeared that it should have been made as soon as possible after that date.The Explanatory Statement for one instrument advised that it replaced outdated instruments but it gave no indication of how long the earlier provisions had been outdated; research by the Committee indicated that this was 10 years. Another instrument corrected an anomaly which had existed for three years. Many instruments with beneficial provisions operate retrospectively, which is acceptable as long as there are justifiable reasons for the delay. The Committee questioned two instruments where there appeared to be no pressing reasons why they could not have been made at the earlier date.One instrument prohibited the supply or possession of mobile telephone jammers. The Explanatory Statement advised that this was because such devices are likely to disrupt substantially and have serious adverse consequences for public mobile telephone services. The Committee asked the Minister about how long the authorities had known of these devices and whether there was any delay in making the instrument.DraftingThe Committee believes that the quality of drafting of legislative instruments should not be less than that for Acts. The provisions of one instrument were at variance with their intention as expressed in the Explanatory Statement. Another instrument provided that something "should" be controlled, which is different to providing, as it was apparently intended, that it "is" controlled. Another instrument included mere drafting surplusage. The Committee questioned imprecise drafting in another instrument. Several instruments included cross-reference errors. A number of instruments did not provide unique numbering or citation. Several instruments were numbered out of order. The Committee did not write to the Minister about a reference in an instrument to 31 April 1999, because it only raises serious issues.Explanatory materialDue to the efforts of the Committee it is now accepted that every legislative instrument should be accompanied by proper explanatory material. All instruments were in fact accompanied by an Explanatory Statement, but unfortunately some of these explained very little or were incomplete or inadequate in some way. One Explanatory Statement made statements which had no statutory basis. Another gave wrong references to provisions in the instrument. The Explanatory Statement for another was only a modified version of the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill. The Explanatory Statement for an instrument providing for extradition with Estonia gave a detailed summary of diplomatic relation with that country but neglected to mention that in the early 1970s Australia recognised de jure the annexation of Estonia by the Soviet Union.Numbers of instruments include Notes, which are included in the body of the instrument itself but do not form part of it. The Committee questioned several inadequacies and inaccuracies in these Notes. The Regulation Impact Statement for one instrument advised that it was made because the previous arrangements were either invalid or at least open to challenge. The Explanatory Statement, however, did not mention this. Principle (b): Does delegated legislation trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties?The Committee interprets this principle broadly, to include every aspect of personal rights. During the sittings the Committee noted the following possible defects in the legislative instruments which it scrutinised.Protection of the rights of individualsThe Committee questions any instrument which gives powers to Ministers or officials which may be too broad or which does not include adequate safeguards for their exercise. One instrument provided for an official to decide whether to remove a person's name from a professional register after application from the person, although it was more appropriate for the person to decide this as of right. A similar instrument provided that an official "may" do something beneficial to a person, when "must" would have been the better formulation. Another instrument provided for an official to exercise power in relation to individuals with no criteria to limit its exercise and without appropriate safeguards. One instrument gave the Minister power to cancel the appointment of a member of an advisory panel without giving notice of intention or reasons or giving the person affected the opportunity to respond to any adverse material.The Committee also writes to the Minister about any aspect of legislative instruments which may operate unfairly upon individuals. The Explanatory Statement for one instrument advised that medical insurance arrangements were being changed for local employees at an Australian embassy because of a marked deterioration in service by the previous insurer over the last 12 months. In this case, the Committee wished to be assured that no staff were out of pocket and that the agency had done everything possible to remedy or ameliorate this deterioration. Another instrument provided for trained volunteer staff operating in remote areas to be covered by the compensation provisions of the enabling Act; the Committee asked whether people carrying out volunteer services in the post were disadvantaged by not coming within the Act. One instrument included a discrepancy in allowance provisions for certain Commonwealth employees. Another instrument provided for a beneficial right in one clause but appeared to take away this right in another. Another exempted discriminatory conduct from the ambit of the Act.One instrument defined security officer as a member of a uniformed security force; such officers could exercise significant powers. There were no further criteria and the Committee asked why a member of these forces acquired special powers merely by donning a uniform. The same instrument also provided that a person who ceased to be an authorised officer must return his or her identity card, but there was no safeguard that this should be done as soon as possible.Unreasonable burdens on businessThe Committee ensures that legislative instruments which affect business include appropriate safeguards and operate fairly. One instrument did not provide for notification of possible sanctions for failure to comply with an official demand, while another did not provide for notification of a right of review. Another did not provide for notification that a person in a certain position had rights in relation to self-incrimination and to be assisted by a legal representative. One instrument did not make it clear that a person must comply with official demands only if they were reasonable and necessary. One instrument did not require reasons to be given for official action although this appeared appropriate to protect personal rights. Another instrument did not include the usual reasonability safeguard to limit and control actions of officials. One instrument gave a discretion to an agency to invite public comments and engage in other consultation, with no criteria to guide the exercise of this power. One instrument provided for an agency to give notice before it cancels a licence, but not to give notice if it varies a licence. Two instruments expressly provided for agencies to take into account subjective rather than objective criteria when making decisions.Other instruments included unexplained provisions which could have affected business adversely. One provided for matters to which an agency must have regard before coming to a decision, with other matters to which the agency merely may have regard. Another provided for strict compliance with forms, with no explanation. Another exempted marine pilots from liability for the consequences of their negligence, thus placing all responsibility on the master and owner of the ship.Fees and chargesMany legislative instruments provide for fees and charges and the Committee questions any aspect of these which appears unusual or unexpected. One instrument increased a levy by 82% in one case and by 58% in another, without explanation. The Explanatory Statement for another advised that it increased fees by 10% although the instrument itself increased a fee by 30%. One instrument provided what the Explanatory Statement described as complex arrangements for refunds of overpaid levy, but gave no indication of how many people were affected by the error in calculation or of the amounts of money involved, either as an average for each levy payer or a total. The Explanatory Statement also did not advise whether the refund included interest or why it took more than a year for the error to be rectified. Another instrument provided for a change in measuring the length of a boat, which was the basis on which fees are set, with no explanation of the effect of the change. The same instrument set new fees but did not indicate either the amount or the percentage of the increase.Offence provisionsThe Committee ensures that offence provisions are fair and include the usual safeguards. One instrument provided for an administrative penalty notice to be imposed on a person up to 12 months after the alleged infringement. Two instruments included power for an official to determine subjectively whether matters relating to offences were relevant, without even a requirement that the official must act reasonably. One of these instruments did not provide for review of a decision to withdraw an infringement notice, even though withdrawal may expose the alleged offender to court prosecution and despite the fact that a decision to refuse to withdraw a notice is subject to review.PrivacyThe Committee ensures that legislative instruments do not breach the fundamental personal right to privacy. One instrument provided for an agency to distribute reports addressing sensitive matters to any person who asks for a copy, regardless of the privacy of any person mentioned in the report. One instrument which provided for the release in certain circumstances of personal information did not indicate that the Privacy Commissioner was consulted before it was made.Principle (c): Does delegated legislation make rights unduly dependent upon administrative decisions which are not subject to independent review of their merits?Legislative instruments often provide for public officials to exercise discretions. The Committee considers that such discretions should be as narrow as possible, include objective criteria to limit and control their exercise and be subject to review of the merits of decisions by an independent, external tribunal such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.The Committee noted a number of instances of unreviewable discretions which could have considerable adverse effects on individual business operations. One provided for a discretion to permit the export of radioactive waste to countries in the Pacific. Another made for the purpose of medical charges and Medicare benefits gave a discretion to decide when certain equipment was first installed and used in Australia. Another discretion related to licences for radiation protection and nuclear safeguards. Another gave an agency the unfettered power to impose conditions on the surrender of a transmitter licence. One instrument provided for review of a decision to withdraw a civil aviation grounding notice when review of a decision not to withdraw a notice may have been appropriate. Another instrument provided for an agency to determine its own costs and then charge for them. One instrument provided for numbers of discretions to be subject to review, but did not provide this for one other important discretion.In a number of instruments it was unclear whether review provisions in the enabling Act covered decisions made under legislative instruments. In such cases the Committee asked the Minister to confirm that this was the case or to amend the instrument to provide expressly for review.Two apparently unreviewable discretions related to recognition of qualifications essential to earn a livelihood in a particular area.Principle (d): Does delegated legislation contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment?The Committee does not raise this principle as often as its other three principles. Nevertheless, it is a principle which goes to the heart of parliamentary propriety and complements the first principle, that an instrument should be in accordance with the statute.Other developmentsDuring the sittings the Committee presented the following reports:. 106th Report: Annual Report 1997-98 (10 March 1999). 107th Report: Report on scrutiny by the Committee of Orders made under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (27 May 1999)The Committee made the following special statements to the Senate on 28 June 1999:(i) Scrutiny of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plans;(ii) Regulation Impact Statements;(iii) Ministerial undertakings.The Committee agreed that it would present a paper entitled "Explanatory material for legislative instruments—the Commonwealth experience" to the Seventh Australasian and Pacific Conference on Delegated Legislation to be held in Sydney 21-23 July 1999.The Committee secretary reviewed "Delegated Legislation in Australia" by Professor Dennis Pearce and Stephen Argument, Butterworths, Sydney, 1999, for the Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum.Copies of the Annual Report 1997-98 were mailed to 150 delegates to the Australian Institute of Administrative Law Conference 1999, Canberra, 29-30 April 1999.The Committee is grateful for the support which it has received from Senators during the present sittings. 6946694616:03:006946Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—On behalf of Senator Calvert and the Joint Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's fourth report of 1999 entitled Australian Embassy, Berlin—Refurbishment of heritage guildingas a chancery and apartments and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The report which I have just tabled concerns the proposal for the refurbishment of heritage buildings as a chancery and apartments for the new Australian embassy in Berlin.The estimated Limit of Cost for the project is $37.277 million.The Committee has approved the renovation and refurbishment works.For this inquiry, the Committee held a public hearing into the proposal in Canberra, but was unable to inspect the proposed site due to provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 which does not allow the Committee to meet overseas. One member of the Committee inspected the site in a private capacity when in Berlin on other Parliamentary business, and was therefore able to make a more practical contribution to the inquiry. However, lack of first hand knowledge of the site made the task of assessing the merits of the proposal a difficult one for the rest of the Committee.In 1991 the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany resolved to relocate the German capital from Bonn to Berlin. Relocation of the German Government and the Bundestag is planned for mid to late 1999 and the diplomatic corps is also in the process of relocating to Berlin.In 1995, the Australian Government purchased two adjoining heritage buildings in the Mitte district of Berlin, following an extensive search for suitable premises and sites for the new embassy. These are the Wallstrasse 76-79 and Mrkisches Ufer 8 buildings. The decision to purchase and refurbish the buildings was intended in part to be Australia's contribution towards the rebuilding of East Berlin. The buildings are 85 years old and are heritage listed. Although structurally sound, they are past their useful operational ages and have inadequate building services and layouts for their intended use. They do not meet current Australian and German building standards and lack amenities, building services and provisions for technology, safety features and occupational health and safety. Heritage elements of the buildings also require restoration. There is therefore a need for complete refurbishment of the buildings.The proposal examined by the Committee involves the:. demolition of much of the interior of the buildings and some elements of the facade, roof, basement and courtyard;. conversion of the basement for use as a carpark;. refurbishment of the heritage elements of the building;. replacement of all building engineering services;. installation of two new lifts;. fitout of the chancery;. landscaping of the courtyard; and. fitout of two apartments in the Wallstrasse building and four apartments in the Mrkisches Ufer building.The total number of Australia-based and locally-engaged staff to be located at the new embassy will be approximately 55. This number includes representatives from the:. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade;. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs;. Department of Defence; and. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.The Committee had a number of concerns with the proposal. In particular, the written evidence presented by the Department of Finance and Administration was insufficiently detailed. The cost breakdowns presented to the Committee made it difficult to make an informed decision on whether the monies allocated to the work will be utilised in the most effective way possible.The provision of apartments in the proposal also concerned the Committee. The rent for each apartment per annum is around $210,000, which is high in comparison with similar accommodation in Berlin. The departments which occupy the apartments will pay rental, which will be supplemented, to the Department of Finance and Administration. Although DoFA advised the Committee that they believe the level of rent charged is reasonable, there were no documented rental comparisons for the Committee to conclude that the rent was a reasonable comparable rate.The Committee questioned the value of restoring the buildings to provide all four bedroom apartments. However, the Committee heard evidence that the configuration and structural condition of the buildings limited the design and mix of accommodations.The Committee also received evidence which indicates that some Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff do not favour collocation of accommodation and workplace, preferring independent private accommodation. The Committee agrees that there is a need for greater flexibility in locations where security concerns do not warrant collocation. However, in this case, the Committee acknowledges that there appear to be few alternatives, other than to use the extra space in the buildings for apartments.The Committee also expressed concern that some of the fees for the project appeared to be unreasonably high. The Department of Finance and Administration advised that this is due to the high costs associated with the establishment of an Australian project director and the fact that fee scales for professionals in Germany are very high. The Committee also questioned DoFA on the use of German contractors rather than Australians. DOFA advised that due to the heritage listing and the extensive restoration work required, engaging contractors with local knowledge was the most viable option in Berlin for a one-off project.I commend the report to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.6947694716:04:006947Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—On behalf of Senator Sandy Macdonald, I present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Publications.Ordered that the report be adopted.Miscellaneous6947694716:05:006947Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—by leave—I present the report of the Australian Observation Mission to the 1999 Indonesian Elections. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees69476947694716:06:006947Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the 11th report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 10 of 1999, dated 30 June 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.6947694716:06:006947Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills entitled The work of the committee during the 38th parliament. Ordered that the report be printed.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report and to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The statement read as follows—This report deals with the operations of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills during the 38th Parliament, from May 1996 to August 1998. It contains statistical data and analytical discussion of the scrutiny work that the Committee carried out during that period.The report should prove particularly useful to Senators, Ministers and their advisers, and general readers, as it contains examples of how the Committee has applied the criteria of scrutiny set out in its terms of reference. These criteria are reproduced towards the beginning of the report.The Report observes that retrospectivity remains one of the principal reasons for the Committee reporting on clauses in bills. The Committee also had reason to comment on provisions which reversed the onus of proof, provisions which inappropriately delegated significant powers, and provisions which excluded certain decisions from review—either by tribunals or the courts. As a general principle, the Committee appreciates the setting out of reasons in the Explanatory Memorandum where a bill contains provisions that may be considered to infringe the terms of reference. This practice greatly assists the Committee and the Senate. Of equal assistance have been the ministerial responses which treat the comments of the Committee as constructive, positive efforts to improve the quality of legislation and the information available to the Senate.During the 38th Parliament, in addition to its legislative scrutiny work, the Committee also reported on the appropriate basis for penalty provisions in Commonwealth legislation for offences related to the giving or withholding of information—a matter referred to it by the Senate. The Committee recommended that the Attorney-General develop more detailed criteria to ensure that these penalty provisions are more consistent, more appropriate and make greater use of a wider range of non-custodial penalties. These criteria should be made available to Ministers, drafters and the Parliament. A review of penalty levels and applicable principles is currently taking place.I would like to acknowledge the high level of service that the members of the Committee gave to the work of scrutiny over the life of the 38th Parliament. Committee members at various times during that Parliament included Senator Winston Crane (who was the Committee's Deputy Chairman), and Senators Colston, Forshaw, Bell, Murray, Ferris, Quirke, Ian Campbell, and Sandy Macdonald.A legislative scrutiny committee depends to a large extent on the input of its legal adviser and its secretariat. The committee has been fortunate to have the services of Professor J L R Davis of the Law Faculty of the Australian National University as its legal adviser. Peter Crawford was the Committee secretary until April 1998, when he retired, and James Warmenhoven took his place. Sue Blunden is the Committee's part-time research officer, and Margaret Lindeman is its administrative officer. On behalf of the Committee, I wish to record our thanks to them.The Scrutiny of Bills Committee is effective only when it receives support from both Ministers and Senators. It is when the Reports and Alert Digests issued by the Committee are considered and acted upon by Ministers and the Senate that the work of the Committee has its greatest effect, both in improving the legislation considered by the Parliament, and in improving the quality of debate in respect of that legislation.Madam President, I commend the Report to the Senate.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned6948694816:07:006948Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts References Committee on the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to make a brief statement.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I start by thanking my colleagues on the committee: Senator Bolkus, Senator Payne, Senator Tierney, Senator Crossin, and particularly Senator Margetts, whose last day it is here today. I congratulate Senator Margetts in particular for being able to be involved in so much committee work and making such an important contribution to the work of committees. Just over the last couple of months, we have had tax, we have had the environment protection biodiversity legislation, we have had Jabiluka, and we have had environment powers. Senator Margetts has been involved in each of those and, as you have heard just a few minutes ago, in other committee work as well.I also want to thank the committee secretariat and all those parties who contributed to this inquiry and this report. I think it is an excellent report. It is one of the best that I have read from this place. It represents very thorough research on the part of the committee, and I think this is an important record of the process involved in the approvals for Jabiluka. That is what the inquiry was all about: process. The miners say it has been the longest, most comprehensive approvals process of any mine in Australia's history. But the committee found it to be a process full of holes and risks—risks to Kakadu National Park, risks to world heritage and risks to the Mirrar people and their culture.At no stage in the environment impact assessment process has it been possible for anyone to say no. We had a new EIS process when we had new miners and a new proposal came along, but no-one asked the traditional owners for their approval of the new mine. I think it is fair to say that the views of the Mirrar have been systematically ignored in the process on Jabiluka, and that remains the case today. They have no legitimate role in deciding on a uranium mine in the heart of the country they own. The committee recommends a look at reform of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to address this question.This process has been about getting to yes on this mine, regardless of the risks associated with that approval. The process has been about approving construction of a mine which, although underground has already carved a great scar in the landscape of Kakadu. Jabiluka is surrounded by Kakadu and it is part of the spectacular landscape of Kakadu. Rocky escarpments, forests of paperbark, and wetlands surround Jabiluka. It is no place for a mine. The approval and the construction have gone ahead in the face of serious doubts about tailings, water retention, cultural management plans, milling options and haul roads. There are massive holes in the ground but still the area has not been mapped for its cultural importance.The social impact of Jabiluka has not been properly taken into consideration. Approvals to begin construction have gone ahead, even though it will destroy a sacred site. I would like to ask how we can expect the Mirrar people to take back a sensitive site which has been blasted, drilled and mined. Even if trees are planted on the site in 20 years time, the site cannot ever be the same for the Mirrar people.There are many important recommendations which I will not go into but which I hope the government will seriously consider. The final recommendation of this report is that Jabiluka should not proceed. The reason stated in this report is that it is irreconcilable with the outstanding natural and cultural values of Kakadu National Park. Every effort must be made to ensure that these values are protected. I commend the report to the Senate.16:12:006949Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also speak to this report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal. I also commend the work done by my colleagues: Senator Allison, who chaired the committee; Senator Crossin from the Northern Territory, who has a deep interest in these issues; Senator Payne; Senator Tierney; and also Senator Margetts. I would also like to take the opportunity to say a few kind things about her on her last day in this place. She used to give me a fair bit of curry when I was minister for immigration and still does in the shadow environment portfolio. Her contribution in this place is one that will be missed. The most notable contribution that I can remember is the contribution with respect to Wik, when she showed not just the political skills needed but also the legal skills to get on top of a big brief. I am sure people involved in that debate remember that, and I am sure indigenous Australians also remember her contribution with respect to that—as do many people in Australia across the country who have a concern for the environment. I wish her the best. I am sure that in a few months time we will be envious of her lifestyle.I also commend the secretariat. I would like to put on record that this is probably one of the finest reports that I have been involved with in my 18 years in this place. I commend Richard Selth, Stephanie Holden, Anthony Burke, David Arnold and Jason Vickery for their work. It has not been an easy six months for this committee. We have had a pretty strenuous list of inquiries—this one, GST, environment powers and the environment bill—but the committee has worked extremely well on all those inquiries, and this report is one that will stand the parliament proud. The secretariat have had to work under enormous time pressure. As I say, this is a good report in any circumstance.This has been a short but important inquiry. It was needed because of the smell of token ism, the smell of fast-tracking and of expediency in government decision making. People across the spectrum had a right to be concerned about how the processes had been embarked upon with respect to the approval of a mine at Jabiluka. What the Senate felt was needed was an overview, an opportunity to look at this particular stage and to scrutinise government actions which had led to mining approvals being given without adequate assessment, without adequate EISs, approvals being given to unseen plans, blank cheques given to mill alternatives, Environment Australia conditions watered down and written off, and so on. There seemed to have been a sense of undue haste to get this proposal agreed to and approved before the last federal election because the miners knew, was Labor to win the last election, that it then would have been a different ball game altogether.There was concern in this place that all these things were happening, that in many ways the rights of traditional owners were being trashed. They were treated with disrespect. They were not given the dignity afforded other human beings with proprietary interests in this area. For instance, their sacred sites were not taken as seriously as they should have been. These issues were all around and are all still around, probably more so because of this report which we are talking to today. The community has made some major findings. Fundamentally, we have found that the process was not one of due process; it was one of hillbilly rules because right from the start there was token recognition of what had to be performed, but in that token recognition there was no meaningful application and consideration of those issues that have actually made Kakadu a world heritage property—the cultural and the environmental issues.The cultural and the environmental characteristics are the issues which have brought this issue to the international scene. They are the ones which the world community is now assessing as to whether they will be endangered by the mine at Jabiluka. The committee found basically that the process has been fundamentally flawed, flawed because it did not apply the process fully and properly, flawed because it allowed too much to go ahead without adequate assessment and without sighting of strategic plans and programs. As a consequence of this fundamentally flawed process, the committee found that the economic and cultural issues were not adequately taken into account. There was a rush to mine which overrode many considerations.As I said, there are important consequences of this mine going ahead, the major immediate one to be faced by the Australian government in Paris in just a few weeks when the World Heritage Committee makes an assessment as to whether Kakadu is to be listed on the world's heritage endangered properties list. Let there be no illusion about what would happen if the property is so listed. There would not just be social concern and concern by environmentalists in this country concerned by the Mirrar people, the traditional owners of that territory. If this property is listed on the endangered list, there will be major economic and social costs to Australia and, above all, there will be an enormous cost to Australia's reputation as a country which, possessing one of the few world heritage listed properties in the world, is prepared to endanger the value of that property. They are issues that have come through in this report.There are also issues as to the future conduct of the mining in Kakadu, fundamental issues as to whether those rules that were suggested by Environment Australia—rules that were watered down by the government and rendered ineffectual in 22 circumstances by the government—have the enforceability of law when applied to the mining company and its proposal to mine at Jabiluka. They may attach to export licences, but there is a degree of vagueness as to the actual effect that those rules will have with respect to such export licences.The committee's recommendations include, for instance, that the World Heritage Committee place Kakadu National Park on its list of world heritage endangered properties. We recommend that steps be taken immediately to implement the UNESCO world heritage recommendations, which the government still has not addressed. We recommend that construction be suspended until at least cultural mapping of the site is conducted with the traditional owners, who, for the last few months, have said to government that they are prepared to do that so long as the mining process is suspended. When you talk to ERA and work out their time lines and recognise that there will be some suspension of mining, that would not have been too much of an ask.We recommend that a new inquiry be conducted to assess the specific social and cultural impacts on the Aboriginal community of the Alligator Rivers region and we also recommend, in view of the inadequate level of assessment and the premature decision making, that there should be a commission of inquiry into this matter. We further recommend that the government seek a new inscription for Kakadu National Park to better reflect the living traditions and cultural landscape.This is an issue that will not go away for Australia. How we handle Kakadu has the potential to give us a continually bad reputation in the world community. This will follow on from the IUCN report, the world conservation union, which, just a few months ago, reported of Australia's position in respect of this mining proposal. They reported, I think, in a way that must concern all Australians. They said that the Australian government's response is `at best full of erroneous information and interpretations or at worst is intentionally deceptive'. That is an international body making an assessment of the Australian government's behaviour. This is a timely report, one which, as I say, reflects the fact that the process has been rushed with insufficient attention to due process. It is more a matter of hillbilly rules.16:21:006951Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—As has been mentioned by my colleagues in this debate, this is an issue in which I have an ongoing interest. I would like to put on record my thanks to Senator Allison and my other colleagues on the committee, including Senator Crossin and Senator Bolkus, for enabling me to participate as I have in this committee. Honourable senators may be aware that I am a participating member on every Senate committee apart from the select committees. That means you have to be in many places at one time. And I have been, as far as possible, sometimes by phone. Some chairs have been very good about it and some have been a little less helpful.In this particular case I was very grateful for being able to participate because we know that this is a seminal issue for many people throughout Australia. What is more, we know that it has captured the imagination of parliamentarians in Europe and Japan. It has also captured the imagination of the United States Congress. We cannot assume that all of these people are drongoes. Basically, we have to assume that Australia's international reputation is being sullied by the position taken by the Australian government. I was sad to see that the government senators on this committee felt it necessary to write a dissenting report, but the first line probably says it all:Government members of the committee reject the findings of the majority report.Later on, they say that:The inquiry has demonstrated, however, that the government's position is widely supported in the general community—And then they also say:. . . and with the scientific community.We talked earlier today about the three wise monkeys, or there was an allusion to this. I think this is perhaps a case of people who might look but will not see because, quite frankly, it would be very difficult to suggest that the evidence given in the inquiry in any way suggested that the majority of the community was in support of the government's position on this issue. We know that Jabiluka is an icon environmental issue in Australia. I do not talk about icons very much because in doing so I think that we sometimes miss the point. If we have issues of ecological value, sometimes talking of icons tends to put things into museum status. In fact, we are talking about living environments, living cultures and the need to value ecological sustainability for itself. But here we have a situation where we are quite certain that the majority of the Australian community do not want to see the area around Jabiluka further trashed.Those people who know about this issue in the international community are horrified that the Australian government can even consider that this is an appropriate thing. We looked at the process and quite clearly the evidence—not the rhetoric—indicated that the mine being proposed is not the mine to which any form of approval has been given. Quite clearly, the senior traditional owner of the area does not agree with the proposal. Even in today's question time, we had Senator Hill pulling out the old nonsense statement that somehow or other the traditional owners came and lobbied for the mine to go ahead. That is simply not true. Yvonne Margarula, as the senior traditional owner, did not, and has not at any stage, lobbied the government for this mine to go ahead.A lot of pressure has been put on the Mirrar people to give up their basic rights over land in order to achieve the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter and health. They have decided that their lands, dignity and culture are more important than getting a bribe from the Commonwealth. But even a bribe is not the issue—they have decided that they have the right, and I agree with them, to fight for the basic standards that anybody in Australia ought to be able to receive from government; that is, proper health and education. It came out in evidence to this inquiry that the actual amount spent by the Northern Territory government, that comes through from appropriations from the Commonwealth, is less to areas like Jabiluka and Jabiru because, we assume, they get benefits from the mines. So, far from getting more benefits overall, the Northern Territory government have made a decision that they will keep those people dependent on such things as uranium mines as far as they can.The Northern Territory government has provided the very arguments that these people are making: that the mine has not given them benefits because the Northern Territory government has in effect withheld the normal standard of living provisions that everyone else gets by being a citizen of this country. It is disgusting and disgraceful, and it is not in any way, shape or form good process.I want to dispel a couple of other myths. Much has been made about so-called approvals, but we found out during the process of taking evidence that Environment Australia, which of course has less resources than it perhaps ought to have—I am not singling out Environment Australia; this applies to many government departments—does not have the number of specialised scientists that we might expect for such a complex and important process as the assessment of Jabiluka.So what do Environment Australia do when they realise that they do not have the expertise available within their ranks to assess the process? They said that they outsource. Well, the next question: to whom? They outsource to experts, they say. Okay, more information: to whom do you outsource? The answer was, `Well, we use groups like the Office of the Supervising Scientist and we use the Northern Territory departments, such as the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy.' Wo! First of all that indicates that Environment Australia know enough about mining assessments to know where they should outsource, and there is no evidence that they do. That is not a criticism of Environment Australia, but it is the reality that you have to know your stuff to know what is a problem. They are going out to the Office of the Supervising Scientist when they think they have a problem or need more information.It also came out in evidence that the Office of the Supervising Scientist does not collect primary data in terms of monitoring the mine. That is not the way that it is currently set up. It monitors and advises on information that has been provided by the company. If you like, it is captive to ERA, to the proponent and, in a way, to whatever processes are going through the Northern Territory departments as well. We have a situation where outsourcing from Environment Australia means that we are still reliant on primary data given by the company itself—the proponent. Secondly, who else does Environment Australia go to? Primarily, the Northern Territory government, who are the biggest fans and proponents of the mine. What would you expect them to say except, `Yes, she is fine; we have no environmental problems. Hydrology? Yes, we have enough information'? What can you expect them to say? That is a really serious problem. It is involved with outsourcing, but this also involves the inde pendence of bodies on which we would otherwise rely.When we hear speeches from Senator Hill saying how much confidence he has in the process, I wonder how many people know that it is reliant on information which is not, and could not be said to be, independent. Many people appreciate the monitoring role that the OSS, the Office of the Supervising Scientist, does play. Most people I know in the environment movement and the antinuclear movement would like to see real teeth and a strengthened role for the Office of the Supervising Scientist.But I am unkind enough to say that, in the end, even the Office of the Supervising Scientist exist only if there are uranium mines in Australia and so, quite frankly, they have a vested interest. They have a vested interest because, if there is no uranium mine, there is no Office of the Supervising Scientist. You could hardly expect any department to actually write their own Dear John letters. In a way, if they say, `This is really not acceptable and should not go ahead,' what do you think is going to happen to the Office of the Supervising Scientist? I think we can assume that they are human beings and that, like any bureaucracy, they will not take action which will lead necessarily to their own demise. That is human nature. They do play a very important role but, in the end, when push comes to shove, they are only there if the uranium mine is there.I am very sorry about the issues involved with ignoring advice, especially heritage advice from traditional owners. I am extremely disappointed about the way that advice from traditional owners has been misinterpreted. I am extremely disappointed about the way the minister has misinterpreted what has been told to him by traditional owners. I would very much support the fact that traditional owners ought to have a direct role in this legal assessment. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.6953695316:31:006953Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 369 of the committee, entitled Australian government procurement . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.Question resolved in the affirmative.695310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Murphy)—Order! Madam President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Heffernan)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—Joint Statutory Committee—Appointed: Senators Boswell and CalvertCommunity Affairs Legislation Committee—Appointed: Senators Mason* and Tchen*Discharged: Senator EgglestonParticipating member: Senator Allison for matters covered by the aged care portfolioCommunity Affairs References Committee—Appointed: Senator Tchen*Discharged: Senator TierneyEconomics Legislation Committee—Appointed: Senator GibsonDischarged: Senator FergusonParticipating Member: Senator Ridgeway*Economics References Committee—Appointed: Senator GibsonDischarged: Senator FergusonParticipating members:Senator Ridgeway*Senator Greig* for the committee's inquiry into whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or on some other site in Australia.Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Appointed: Senators Boswell and Mason*Discharged: Senator LightfootEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee— Appointed: Senator Tchen*Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee—Appointed: Senators Tchen* and TierneyDischarged: Senator FerrisEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Appointed: Senators Eggleston and LightfootDischarged: Senators Payne and TierneyFinance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Appointed: Senators Lightfoot and ParerDischarged: Senators Gibson and WatsonParticipating member: Senator Ridgeway*Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Appointed: Senators Brownhill and WatsonDischarged: Senator GibsonParticipating member: Senator Ridgeway*Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Appointed: Senators Brownhill, Calvert and PayneForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Appointed: Senators Brownhill and CalvertDischarged: Senator FerrisForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Appointed: Senator BrownhillLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Appointed: Senator Mason*Discharged: Senator McGauranParticipating member: Senator Greig*Legal and Constitutional References Committee:Appointed: Senator Mason*Discharged: Senator CoonanParticipating members: Senators Greig* and QuirkeNational Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—Appointed: Senator WatsonDischarged: Senator McGauranPublications—Standing Committee—Appointed: Senator LightfootRegulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee—Appointed: Senator Mason* Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Substitute member: Senator Ferris to replace Senator Crane on 1 July 1999Selection of Bills—Standing Committee—Appointed: Senator McGauranTreaties—Joint Committee—Appointed: Senators Mason* and Tchen*Discharged: Senator Brownhill* with effect on and from 1 July 1999.Bills6954r771Billsr815Billsr814Billsr818Billsr8256954Bills received from the House of Representatives.16:33:006954Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have two of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.695416:35:006954Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—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—DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT BILL 1999The purpose of this bill is to improve compensation for members of the public who suffer personal injury or property damage as third parties on the ground involved in an air accident.Recent air accidents in Australia have seen six houses damaged in one accident and five members of the public killed in another. Recent accidents overseas have demonstrated the potential for considerably more loss of life and property damage. For example, the crash of a Boeing 747 in Amsterdam in 1989 killed 43 members of the public and in effect destroyed two large apartment blocks.It should be stressed that the involvement of members of the public in an air accident, as third parties on the ground, is generally not due to any choice or action on their part. In the great majority of cases, they will not have contributed in any way to the accident, for example, by contributory negligence, or, by choosing aviation as a mode of transport.Improving compensation for members of this non-flying public will complement the Commonwealth government's recent initiative in introducing a national scheme improving compensation for air passengers and their relatives, who suffer loss or injury during an air accident. This involved raising the amount of compensation substantially, and making passenger liability insurance mandatory for all carriers serving the Australian aviation market.The main concern with the current third party on the ground arrangements is the amount of compensation available to some injured parties. This can differ across Australia according to whether the operator of the aircraft involved is engaged in domestic or international operations, and, in the case of international aircraft, whether or not an aircraft's country of registration is a signatory to the Rome Convention of 1952. The Rome Convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft is an instrument of international aviation law, which unfortunately limits the amount of compensation payable to an inadequate level.Not only do the compensation outcomes differ across Australia but also the burdens of proof imposed on injured third parties on the ground. As foreign aircraft, whether subject to the Convention or not, are strictly liable for any damage, the plaintiff has no need to establish liability in the first instance before seeking compensation. Domestic aircraft coming under State legislation in the majority of States and making only intrastate flights are also strictly liable. However, aircraft flying within the Territories, and within Queensland and South Australia, are subject only to common law. Under common law, members of the public suffering damage by aircraft must first prove negligence in the courts, before any amount of compensation is considered.This lack of national uniformity in measures intended to protect the public's personal and property rights is unsatisfactory from the point of view of social justice, and inconsistent with the concept of a single national market for aviation services. The variation in access to compensation, and the different levels of compensation possible, can create considerable uncertainty for the plaintiff and can increase the costs on the judicial system and the plaintiff through the increased levels of litigation necessary to obtain better compensation.As I have just indicated, the most significant concern with the current arrangements is the inadequate level of compensation that would be available from an accident caused by one of the larger foreign aircraft subject to the Rome Convention.For example, the total liability limit for a Boeing 747 aircraft allowable under the Convention is about $A36 million, on the most favourable interpretation of the gold conversion mechanisms allowed under the Convention. This is clearly insufficient to cover the full compensation required in the event of a major air crash in a metropolitan area in Australia, similar to the 1989 B747 crash in Amsterdam. However, the limit for the B747 could also be as low as around $A4m. This would be on the least favourable interpretation of the conversion mechanisms, which is to use the last official price of gold. This is clearly unacceptable in Australia.The Convention's limitation on liability and its low amounts of allowable compensation are mainly due to the survival of the infant industry argument into the 1950's when it was being drawn up. This argument has long since lost any force, and is especially inappropriate, when prompt and adequate compensation for the innocent victims of air accidents is being considered.In addition, the Convention has gained very restricted adherence in its almost 50 years of existence, mainly due to its low compensation limits. It does not therefore provide the international uniformity of rules or adequacy of compensation intended. Canada denounced the Convention in 1976, citing these shortcomings as reasons for doing so.This bill therefore improves the situation quickly, as far as those large foreign aircraft subject to the Rome Convention are concerned, by repealing the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958, which gives force of law to the Convention in Australia. The Convention will also be denounced at a time to coincide with this bill coming into effect.The bill replaces the Convention's strict but limited liability regime with strict and unlimited liability. This will make those foreign aircraft currently sub ject to the Convention subject to the same liability regime of strict and unlimited liability that currently applies to the great majority of foreign aircraft serving the Australian market.The bill's strict and unlimited liability regime will also apply to aircraft operating within the Territories. This will assist in removing the anomalies in the national arrangements covering third party on the ground liabilities. The bill's liability provisions are closely aligned with those currently in legislation in the majority of Australian States. However, as the bill is intended to provide members of the public with compensation that is as prompt and as comprehensive as practicable, it modernises and strengthens the provisions of relevant State legislation, where clear public gains have been possible. The bill also retains provisions of the Rome Convention regime where they will be of advantage to the plaintiff.Finally, in order to remove the anomalies across the various Australian jurisdictions completely, I propose urging the ministers responsible for aviation matters in South Australia and Queensland to enact very similar legislation as soon as possible. This will be the least complex way of achieving national uniformity in this area.In proposing these measures, the Commonwealth government is reflecting the results of extensive consultation on options to improve the current regime. This showed overwhelming support from the industry and other interested parties for the introduction of a uniform national regime, based on all aircraft being subject to strict and unlimited liability. The introduction of strict and unlimited liability within Commonwealth jurisdiction naturally requires the denunciation of the Rome Convention.The bill's main provisions therefore provide a coverage of aircraft as comprehensive as practicable. All aircraft coming within Commonwealth jurisdiction will be subject to strict and unlimited liability, except Australian military aircraft. This will include all foreign aircraft operating over Australian territory, all Australian aircraft operating international flights, all domestic interstate carriers, and private owner/operators in the Territories. The great majority of these aircraft are already subject to strict and unlimited liability.It is intended that compensation will also be as comprehensive as practicable, to cover all economic and non-economic loss possible. The person using the aircraft at the time of impact and its owner will be jointly and severally liable. This will give the courts ample scope to find compensation for the plaintiff, in the absence or insolvency of one or the other.However, as a balance against this comprehensive and relatively rigorous application of liability, the bill restricts liability to instances of damage resulting from actual impact with either the aircraft or parts of it or with an object falling from it when the aircraft is in flight. This accords with legislation in the majority of Australian States. Normal aircraft operations should remain unaffected. Alleged minor damage from such incidents as tile movement from wake vortices, or trespass or nuisance claims from noise or vibrations and the like are not included.Restricting liability for damage to the period of flight will also allow normal operations at airports, and the minor and frequent incidents associated with them, to continue without the application of the new act. Minor damage occurring at times other than during flight, for example, when the aircraft is being towed to a hangar, or is taxiing to a hard stand, should be covered by the common law as it has been in the past. However, serious incidents on landing at airport sites such as overshooting the runway or veering off a taxiway at speed and causing damage, and crash landings, are included in the bill's provisions. This restriction of strict liability to incidents during flight is also consistent with provisions in State legislation.I consider that this bill will allow the introduction of an improved regime for third party on the ground compensation that falls within Commonwealth jurisdiction. It will also provide the basis for the Commonwealth's initiative to unify national compensation arrangements. Applying strict and unlimited liability to all aircraft across Australia will be the best outcome from the point of view of social justice.It will assist in establishing compensation as prompt and as comprehensive as practicable for those members of the non-flying public unfortunate enough to be included among the victims of an air accident, through no choice or action of their own.ACIS ADMINISTRATION BILL 1999This bill, along with the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 and Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999, implements two key elements of the Government's post-2000 arrangements for the automotive industry by:. Reducing the rates of Customs duty on passenger motor vehicles and certain related componentry from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005; and. Establishing the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS) which will start on 1 January 2001.The government announced its post-2000 arrangements for the industry on 5 June 1997, in response to the Industry Commission report on the automotive industry. The government decision recognised the significant progress this industry has made over a period of more than a decade, and the need to ensure the industry would maintain its progress in the transition towards becoming a competitive player in the global market.On 22 April 1998, the government announced that ACIS would be the centrepiece of its post-2000 transitional arrangements for the automotive industry.The present arrangements for the automotive industry are due to finish at the end of 2000. In developing a new assistance package for the industry, the government was acutely aware that the central element of the new package would need to be consistent with our international obligations. ACIS represents the result of extensive policy design work, close consultation with industry and careful consideration of our trade obligations.The Customs Legislation (Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme) Bill 1998 to implement ACIS was introduced into Parliament on 2 July 1998, but the legislation lapsed with the proroguing of Parliament.Since the introduction of legislation last year:. Customs has become part of the Attorney General's portfolio, and principal responsibility for administering ACIS now resides with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources; and. Industry has had the opportunity to provide further input to the scheme, resulting in a more rigorous legislative design, and a scheme which, from an administrative standpoint, better meets industry needs.Automotive Competitiveness and Investment SchemeThis bill provides for the establishment of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS).ACIS will encourage the development of internationally competitive firms in the automotive industry through rewarding eligible production, strategic investment and research and development (R&D).Within the scheme:. Those qualifying as Motor Vehicle Producers (MVPs) will be able to claim: Duty credit to the value of 25 per cent of the value of production of motor vehicles, engines and engine components, multiplied by the tariff rate; and Duty credit to the value of 10 per cent of their investment in eligible plant and equipment.. Those qualifying as Automotive Component Producers, Automotive Machine Tools and Tooling Producers, or Automotive Service Providers will be able to claim: Duty credit to the value of 25 per cent of their investment in eligible plant and equipment; and Duty credit to the value of 45 per cent of their investment in eligible R&D.Where MVPs produce automotive components, automotive machine tooling or automotive services for a third party, they too can apply for these benefits.Duty credit will be fully transferable, so credit can either be used to offset Customs duty on eligible imports, or it can be sold to a third party.To meet Australia's World Trade Organisation obligations, benefits under ACIS for each participant will not be permitted to exceed 5 per cent of its eligible sales for the preceding year.Benefits under ACIS will also be capped for the industry as a whole at $2 billion over the years 2001 to 2005. The production credit which directly replaces the Duty Free Allowance (that is, 15 per cent of value of production of passenger motor vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand) is not included within the fiscal cap, and the revenue forgone is expected to be around $825 million over five years.The key changes embodied in the new bill include:. Focussing the scheme on the now seamless market for light vehicles under 3.5 tonnes, comprising cars, four wheel drives and light commercial vehicles;. Tightening the scheme to minimise the scope for abuse;. Including the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 to enable any necessary adjustments to benefits;. Shifting primary responsibility for administering ACIS from the Australian Customs Service to the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, in line with changes to Administrative Arrangement Orders announced in October 1998; and. Providing officers of the Department with powers to properly administer ACIS, such as audit powers.The changes will make administration of the scheme easier to manage, and more robust. The changes will also ensure that the scheme more accurately reflects current industry practice, so that the industry receives the intended benefits from ACIS, with the least administrative burden.The bill provides for the administrative detail for ACIS to be set out in subsidiary legislation, in the form of Regulations and Ministerial guidelines.SummaryThis bill, and the two associated bills are an integral part of the overall package of government initiatives for the automotive industry. Along with the Automotive Market Access and Development Strategy, which is being oversighted by the Automotive Trade Council, the package will help position the industry as a competitive player in the global market.The package has the support of the major industry stakeholders. They have contributed significantly to the improvements devised since the legislation was first introduced.Each measure of the package is contingent on the success of the other, and it is essential that the integrity of the package be maintained during the passage of this, and the two associated bills.I commend this bill to the Senate, and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.ACIS (UNEARNED CREDIT LIABILITY) BILL 1999This bill, along with the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999, will implement the government's package of post-2000 initiatives for the automotive industry.Recovery of Unearned CreditThis bill gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover ACIS duty credit paid to participants where:. There has been an error or mistake of fact in calculating a benefit;. Information provided to the Department was incorrect or incomplete;. There is a clerical error or mistake in the ACIS ledger which records the balance of credit; or. The credit was claimed in respect of a transaction that was not at arm's length and involved "non-arm's length values."The ACIS Administration Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which credit may have to be paid back to the Commonwealth, and sets out a process for recovering unearned credit. This bill imposes the liability.I commend this bill to the Senate, and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (ACIS IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 1999This bill, along with the ACIS Administration Bill 1999 and the ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999, will implement the government's package of post-2000 initiatives for the automotive industry. Customs Tariff ReductionUnder the current provisions of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, the rate of Customs duty imposed on passenger motor vehicles and certain parts for passenger motor vehicles is declining each year. At present it is at 17.5 per cent, and it will reach 15 per cent on 1 January 2000, after which there are no more annual reductions. This bill provides for the tariff to be reduced to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005.The stable tariff regime between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2004 will offer firms in the industry vital breathing space to adjust and to integrate their operations into global markets.The tariff reduction in 2005 is in line with the government's commitment to trade liberalisation, and is a tangible step in Australia meeting its APEC goal by the year 2010. It will continue the downward pressure on the automotive tariff, and will also deliver cheaper prices and higher quality to consumers.Customs ItemThis bill also provides the Item under which Customs duty liabilities on eligible imports can be discharged by duty credit earned under the ACIS Administration Bill 1999.SummaryThe tariff reduction and new Item are integral to the whole package of government initiatives for the automotive industry.Each measure of the package is contingent on the success of the other, and it is essential that the integrity of the package be maintained during the passage of this, and the two associated bills.I commend this bill to the Senate.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 7) 1999Restructuring of managed investment schemesThis Bill provides relief from any unintended tax consequences arising on a managed investment scheme restructuring for the purposes of the Managed Investments Act 1998.The relief will be available to schemes operating on 1 July 1998, which restructure in accordance with the Managed Investments Act 1998 during the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2000.Members of these schemes will also receive relief from any unintended taxation consequences resulting from their scheme restructuring for the purposes of the Managed Investments Act 1998.Company Law ReviewThis Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and associated tax laws to ensure that a company's share capital account does not become tainted by the merger of tainted share premiums with share capital under recent Corporations Law amendments.The amendments also provide that all debt for equity swap arrangements which should qualify for the exception to the tainting rule do so and the delayed crediting of share capital to the share capital account does not trigger the share capital tainting rule.The proposed amendments apply from 1 July 1998Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators.I commend this Bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Ordered that the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Debate (on motion by Senator Gibbs) adjourned.Bills6959r753Message received from the House of Representatives transmitting the bill for concurrence.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous6959Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendment made by the Senate to the following bill:Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999Message received from the House of Representatives returning the following bills without amendment:Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills:Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 Business69596959Motion (by Senator Gibbs)—by leave—agreed to:That business of the Senate order of the day No. 1, relating to the proposed reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be discharged from the Notice Paper.Bills6959s1946959Debate resumed.16:38:006959Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I join my colleague Senator Margetts in opposing this Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] . As the Senate knows from previous debate, it is legislation to remove from illegal immigrants to Australia their access to information about their legal rights. It means that even the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Ombudsman, who have been able to previously give written advice, at least, to such people on Australian soil, will be prevented by this bill from doing so. What we have here is a cheating of people's right to knowledge. Not only is it cheating people—who are, in the main, in pretty desperate individual circumstances—on Australian soil of their ability to find out what their legal rights are but also it is a blocking, by law, of anybody else who goes to their assistance. This is a deliberate attempt through legislation to say that such people are not recognised as human beings in the international community. It is a deliberate effort against international law to say that there will be people on Australian soil who are going to be deprived of a basic right: their right to know what their legal rights are.It is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It would be very appropriate in the former Soviet Union where people were routinely denied their rights as citizens and where hapless people trespassing into the wrong territory not only were denied their rights but also were summarily convicted without having a say. That is the consequence here. Such people will be expelled even if, had they been able to assert their rights and have a say, they could have been classified, for example, as refugees. An earlier speaker, perhaps Senator Margetts, pointed to the example of the arrival of 84 Chinese people in Australia in November 1994 in a boat. They were given legal assistance at the last minute and 32 of them were found to be refugees and were given refugee status here.What this legislation aims to do is to turn a deliberate blind eye to such people seeking asylum from where they came from. We are going to deliberately deny them the opportunity of their legal right to explain their case for not being returned. This will lead to yet more harrowing cases of people being treated badly after they leave Australian shores, not just because their case was not assessed correctly or because the facts of their case were not properly understood or even because they were not listened to, but because—through the passage of this legislation through the parliament, backed by the big parties—they were deliberately denied their legal rights to know what those rights were and to have their day before a fair arbitration system. Be that on the heads of those people who are putting this bill through here today. We can only object, and we object not just because we have some minor disagreement with this piece of legislation but because it is fundamentally wrong. It is fundamentally against those charters of rights of human beings which have been built up over the years and which are internationally recognised.It is a sad day when we see Australia doing this for a political motive, no doubt, which even has strong popular backing. But if we do not stand for the right of law and for people's rights, whomever they might be, and for international law in this parliament, who is going to? It is not too precious a thing to ask how far this process of legislators deliberately denying people access to their rights may go. Where will the line be drawn?It is a pretty sad day for the Australian legislature when the Greens and Democrats are left here to take this legislation on and to stand up for the rights that are involved. Put the people aside for a moment, if we must—though we Greens certainly would not do that in any decision on what to do here—and let us look at the rights that are involved. Here we are legislating away a fundamental right built up over centuries of common law: the right of people to be informed of their rights and to have access to legal assistance to ensure that those rights are given a fair day in the legal system of this country. So it is not just the specific legislation I object to, it is the process. It is the erosion of rights and the failure to defend rights to the last person, which means we do not know which lot of people may be picked off next for which lot of excuses next time.There are other ways that the approach to knocking boat people out of Australia could be made. There are other more direct and honest approaches that could be made, if that is what this legislature wants to do. But to do it by a backdoor erosion of people's rights and a denial of rights is a very dangerous thing to do. I note that Desmond Manderson of Macquarie University, in an opinion piece in the Age two years ago, said:A right about which people are ignorant is meaningless. A door without a key is a wall.Let me follow that up by saying that where you build a wall against the rights of a tiny minority, you are threatening to build a wall against the rights of bigger minorities, and who knows where that trend will finish. This legislation is wrong. It is a violation of the tenets of international law. It is the wrong approach to what is no doubt a problem worrying all Australians. It is the wrong way to go about it. It is covert; it is cheating through legislation. It is just a legislative cheat.Those who are supporting this will live to rue the day they began on this course. I suspect that before long we are going to see more draconian stuff than this in this place, built upon this piece of legislation and a couple of pieces which have gone before. It worries me a great deal. The people who have devised this method of dealing with boat people coming to this country ought to have thought about the ramifications of it. It is not the right way to be dealing with this problem. It is the wrong way to go. I oppose the legislation.16:48:006961Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank Senators McKiernan, Bartlett, Margetts, Cooney and Brown for their contributions. I also want to say that I appreciate the Democrats' cooperation, because I know Senator Woodley was hoping to speak on this bill but in order to facilitate the bill he has withdrawn. I express the government's appreciation for that. I remind honourable senators that this bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in December last year and the committee tabled its report on 21 April 1999. The committee recommended that the bill stand as printed but that the government consider amending the explanatory memorandum to clarify the government's intention.The government has responded to the committee's recommendations by appropriately amending the explanatory memorandum. The replacement explanatory memorandum was circulated to all senators by the Table Office some time ago and I tabled a copy in the chamber earlier today. I realise that Senator McKiernan thought that it had just been tabled, but I was very conscious that he was not taking the bill through at the time. I also foreshadow that the government will be moving amendments to the bill to strengthen offence provisions in the Migration Act dealing with the increasing problem of people trafficking.Before concluding, I want to deal briefly with some of the comments and questions raised by Senator Cooney earlier today. First, Senator Cooney said that the minister's second reading speech denigrated certain people involved in the events of 1996. Senator Cooney and I mostly agree across the chamber on a lot of issues, but I think he has erred a little in reading too much into the speech and has drawn inferences from certain passages in the speech which were never intended. A fair reading of the speech, much of which simply states the facts, does not support his view that it attacks the people he mentioned.Senator Cooney also suggested that the minister's second reading speech attacked Justice Lindgren by implying that the judge failed to follow precedents set by the courts. I beg to differ with the good senator on that issue. All the paragraph to which Senator Cooney referred does is to set out the factual position on section 256. The judicial authorities to which that paragraph refers are, firstly, the full Federal Court in Wu Yu Fang v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 135 ALR 583, per Nicholson J, with whom Jenkinson J agreed at 627 ff, 633-634; and, secondly, Sackville J in Guo Wei Rong v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 38 ALD 38, at 61.Senator Cooney was very gracious in recognising my commitment to privacy issues over the years. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I thank Senator Cooney for his kind remarks and assure him that my commitment to that area remains strong. However, one always has to have balance and to balance out various rights. Senator Cooney implied that the amendment to the Telecommunications Interception Act might be another step towards some kind of Big Brother approach to law enforcement by this government. The amendments which I will shortly be moving simply reflect the serious nature of people trafficking. It has become more common. It is a relatively new phenomenon in this day and age, though it might have happened in the olden days, and a number of unscrupulous people are benefiting from those people who see themselves as in a desperate situation, often a desperate economic or social situation.The criminal organisations behind this terrible trade are well organised. Apart from anything else, they are placing people at great risk by putting them on unseaworthy vessels and sending them to other countries, including Australia. The government acknowledge the support of the opposition in our determination to give our police forces the tools they need to detect and prevent these crimes. We need to be able to pinpoint the people onshore who are facilitating these crimes and working in cooperation with the people smugglers offshore. This tool will strengthen Australia's ability to monitor and, hopefully, prevent some of the most dangerous criminal activities currently being pursued. We know that other sorts of smuggling often goes with people smuggling, including drug smuggling. For that reason, I believe this measure is appropriate. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.6962The bill.16:54:006962Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 7:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 and 8), omit the clause, substitute:2 Commencement (1) Sections 1, 2 and 3 commence on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 1, and Schedule 2, are taken to have commenced on 3 December 1998. (3) Item 2A of Schedule 1 commences, or is taken to have commenced, immediately after the commencement of item 2 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1999 . (4) Subject to subsection (5), the remaining items of Schedule 1, and Schedule 1A, commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (5) If the items of Schedule 1 referred to in subsection (4), and Schedule 1A, do not commence under that subsection within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the first day after the end of that period.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 2), omit "Each", substitute "Subject to section 2, each".(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 27), after item 2, insert:2A Paragraph 193(3)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) a person covered by subsection (1) has not made a complaint in writing to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission, paragraph 20(6)(b) of the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission Act 1986 does not apply to the person; and(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 29), after item 3, insert:3A After section 232 Insert:232A Organising bringing groups of non-citizens into Australia A person who: (a) organises or facilitates the bringing or coming to Australia, or the entry or proposed entry into Australia, of a group of 5 or more people; and (b) does so knowing the people would become, upon entry into Australia, unlawful non-citizens; is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 20 years or 2,000 penalty units, or both.3B Section 233 (penalty) Repeal the penalty, substitute: Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units, or both.3C After section 233 Insert:233A Other offences relating to groups of non-citizens etc. (1) A person must not, in connection with: (a) the entry or proposed entry into Australia, or the immigration clearance, of a group of 5 or more non-citizens (which may include that person), or of any member of such a group; or (b) an application for a visa or a further visa permitting a group of 5 or more non-citizens (which may include that person), or any member of such a group, to remain in Australia; do any of the following: (c) present, or cause to be presented, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act a document that the person knows is forged or false; (d) make, or cause to be made, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act a statement that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; (e) deliver, or cause to be delivered, to an officer or a person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act, or otherwise furnish, or cause to be furnished, for official purposes of the Commonwealth, a document containing a statement or information that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular. (2) A person must not transfer or part with possession of a document or documents: (a) with the intention that the document or documents be used to help a group of 5 or more people, none of whom are entitled to use the document or documents, or any member of such a group, to gain entry into or remain in Australia, or to be immigration cleared; or (b) if the person has reason to suspect that the document or documents may be so used. Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or 2,000 penalty units, or both.3D Section 234 (penalty) Repeal the penalty, substitute: Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units, or both.3E Section 236 (penalty) Repeal the penalty, substitute: Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units, or both.(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 2), at the end of the Schedule, add:5 Subsection 492(1) Omit "subsection (2)", substitute "this section".6 At the end of section 492 Add: (3) A prosecution of a person for an offence against section 232A, 233 or 233A that is alleged to have been committed after the commencement of this subsection may be instituted at any time.(6) Page 4 (after line 2), after Schedule 1, insert:Schedule 1A—Consequential amendments of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 19791 Subsection 5(1) Insert: immigration offence means an offence against section 232A, 233, 233A, 234 or 236 of the Migration Act 1958 . 2 At the end of paragraph 5D(3)(d) Add: ; (xii) an immigration offence.(7) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (lines 4 to 6), omit the item, substitute:1 Effect of certain Schedule 1 amendments The amendments made by items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 are not intended to alter the effect of any orders made by a court before 3 December 1998.I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum and the replacement supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments moved to this bill. The memorandums were circulated in the chamber on 29 April 1999 and 28 June 1999, respectively.16:54:006963McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I rise to speak on the telecommunications interceptions amendments to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . Whilst the opposition wholeheartedly support the passage of the bill, we gave very serious attention to these amendments because it is a very serious matter. We do not lightly support giving powers to intercept the telecommunications system in this country, but we realise what is at stake. We are aware of the ever increasing number of people coming to this country—people who are being trafficked for others to profit from.We gave very serious and long consideration to the amendments before we committed our support to the interceptions in this area to stop people smuggling into this country. We have come down on the side of supporting the government in this matter. We are aware of what is required to grant interceptions. The request will have to be made to a magistrate and a magistrate will give the power to officers to intercept. We are aware that, if that power had been available in the past, more people might have been charged and possibly convicted for the offence of illegally bringing people into this country. We have reservations about the bill and we will be monitoring it. Under the Telecommunications Interception Act, there are requirements to report to the parliament on the number of times that the powers are used. We expect that the powers will be used properly and we will be monitoring the use of the powers.16:56:006964Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—As I indicated in the second reading stage of the debate on this legislation, the Democrats do not oppose the amendments that have been moved. I would like to make it clear for the record that the Democrats support the amendments. I note some confusion in an AAP report from the debate earlier this morning—and I do not criticise the AAP because it does a good job of reporting on the activities in the parliament. But to make it precisely clear, the Democrats support the amendments which have been brought in fairly late in the piece and are not really related to the fundamental purpose of the bill. However, the Democrats are strongly opposed to the vehicle that the amendments are being attached to as a mechanism for getting them through the parliament. I think it is important to make that clear.The Democrats support the purpose and aim of the amendments to try to pursue measures to reduce the level of people trafficking and people smuggling. We think there is a benefit from that, not just to the Australian community but also to people who are genuine users of, and have genuine connections with, our refugee and humanitarian program. I think it is beneficial for them. I wish to put on the record again quite specifically that the Democrats are opposed to the overall legislation, the principle behind it and the role it seeks to achieve. However, we do not have a problem with these amendments, which are really separate to the legislation.I will not go on at great length, but it is worth briefly drawing the Senate's attention to the government response to the 1998 report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Those who have come across the seas: the detention of unauthorised arrivals—which has been tabled in this place since we adjourned the debate on this legislation this morning. I have only just had a chance to look at it. It deals with the issue—amongst others—that the body of this legislation is dealing with. Not surprisingly, the recommendations that are contained within it from the Human Rights and Equal Opportuni ty Commission relating to the provision of legal advice are not agreed to by the government. I guess that is not a surprise. But it reinforces why the overall legislation is of concern to the Democrats.As the report says, correctly but nonetheless worryingly, the federal government has a different view to that of the UN Human Rights Committee in relation to the rights of a detainee to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court. As the government correctly states, the UNHRC is not binding in Australia, so it does not have to have the same view. However, it is still a concern that that view is not shared.The recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation to the provision of legal assistance to ensure that people can be advised of their right to have access to legal assistance or reasonable facilities for receiving legal advice have not been supported by the government, not surprisingly given what they are doing with this legislation. It is worth re-emphasising that that is a matter of concern to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and a concern to the Democrats.It is not appropriate in this bill to go on further about the government response to that overall report. That is for another time. In passing, I would note that only 35 out of the 94 recommendations were supported by the government, with another 37 supported in part, which adds up to 72. That means 22 were not supported at all. That is a matter of concern. I am not saying that there were not some legitimate reasons for some of those decisions on the part of the government, but there are some very serious issues. Let us not forget that this is a very important issue. It does deal with some fundamental issues in relation to human rights and people in very dire circumstances. We do need to be very careful about making sure we do the right thing in those areas. Those are the reasons for the Democrats being opposed to the bill, which is just a very small one—a couple of pages. We do not oppose the amendments that the parliamentary secretary has moved.17:01:006964Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—It is the last day and I have refrained from speaking on this legislation. It was clear to me that the legislation would go through because it had the support of the opposition. There was really no point, certainly on the last day, in my making a contribution which would not be immediately effective, although I would like to have expressed my view on the bill itself.I am opposed to the legislation that is before us. I am also concerned about the fact that the amendments have been tacked onto this piece of legislation, making it rather awkward for us to vote against the third reading. But because of the nature of those amendments, which are regarded as being important and will be supported, I do not really know how else to deal with this. Maybe the government or the opposition or the chamber itself could deal with that at this late stage, so I will refrain from making any further comment, other than that I am opposed to what I see as the truncating of the rights of individuals, which is inherent in this particular piece of legislation.17:03:006965Margetts, Sen DeeSenator MARGETTSDX5WAG(WA)00—I expressed my views during the second reading contribution in relation to the amendments. I also suggested that the Greens (WA) would not be opposing them. It has obviously been agreed that they may stop the hurt and disappointment of many people who may have been led to believe that they will be well received in Australia, that there might be opportunities or that, if they are real refugees, their cases might be helped if they come using these traffickers. It is not helping them, and I think it is a step in the right direction to stop those people who might otherwise be trafficking or benefiting from treating other people badly or from building up their hopes. But it might mean that real refugees will get treated badly simply because they are part of a trafficking process. It is very sad to think that that might happen.Like the position of the Australian Democrats, as expressed by Senator Bartlett, from the Greens (WA) point of view the bill itself is not supportable. It has not been supportable for years, including, as I have said before, from the time that former Senator Chamarette spoke up extremely strongly about the issue. We are extremely disappointed that this is another bad end to a pretty terrible week and a half of my last week and a half. It is with great regret that I say I do not support the bill but will not oppose the amendments. It is very sad to see that this is the way that legislation on immigration and refugees continues to proceed in the Australian parliament.Amendments agreed to.17:05:006965Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Just for the record, can I get an assurance from the parliamentary secretary in relation to the amendments we have just passed that the effect of them is not to generate any extra or new offence that does not already exist in the legislation but to simply extend the penalties for people involved in those activities? That is my understanding of the effect, but I would like to have that on the record more specifically.17:06:006965Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Bartlett, they are not new offences. It is about whether you are trafficking in terms of the number of people—I think you have the amendments there in front of you—and also about increasing the penalties. It is not extending the law. They are the same offences, but they apply for more than five people. Is that clear?17:06:006965Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Can I also get on the record the likelihood of the actual effect of these amendments and the purpose that the department will be using them for? Is it to target the organisers of people trafficking or people smuggling activities rather than the people who are being trafficked, who are in most cases what might be called the innocent victims of misrepresentation or unfair coercion by the people who are involved in the trade itself? I would like to get clarification on that as well.17:07:006965Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Bartlett, I am advised—and this is my interpretation of it—that it is aimed at the smugglers not the `smugglees', if that is what you would call them. It is aimed at those who are, onshore or offshore, involved in trafficking people—the ones who are orchestrating it.17:08:006966Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In relation to the overall legislation, could I get an indication from the government as to what the passage of this bill will mean in practice compared with what the existing practices are? Will any operational changes occur as a consequence of this legislation passing that have not already been put in place as a response to the court case in 1996—I think it was—that generated the whole process?17:09:006966Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—This puts into legislation what basically has been done since the 1996 episode. There will not be any changes in the sense of procedural changes, although people who get caught will be given a higher penalty. To clarify it for Senator Bartlett: the procedures will not change from those that have been in place since 1996.17:10:006966Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I wish to clarify this, apropos of what Senator Bartlett has asked. If you look at section 233 of the Migration Act, and even section 236, in which there is an increased penalty, could people commit the crime that sections 233 and 236 deal with without trafficking? In other words, do you have to participate in trafficking to bring into operation sections 233 and 236? I think you ought to clarify that.17:12:006966Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—It is moments like this when I wish I had done law, Madam Chairman. Sometimes being a psychologist in this chamber is a help but, more often than not, being a lawyer would be of greater help.Senator McKiernan interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I think Senator Herron sometimes finds being a doctor useful. I have been advised that section 233 can apply to someone who is bringing in one person, maybe on a sailing boat, or it can involve someone who is trafficking in a large number of people, and the penalties apply equally.17:12:006966Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Does the government intend that, if in fact there were harbouring that was not associated with trafficking, even though the maximum penalty is the same, the expectation would be that the court would give different penalties?17:13:006966Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I do not think it is appropriate here to guess at what a court would do, but I presume the court would take into account the seriousness, the nature and the intent of the activity. I do not think I could judge, or anyone could judge, what the court would do, but I presume that it would be based on the severity of the trafficking. I guess one may see trafficking in large numbers of people as being more serious than trafficking that involves bringing in one person.17:14:006966Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I have been listening to the various speeches in the chamber and you are quite right, Parliamentary Secretary, we were trying to be helpful. That was one of the reasons why I did not make a second reading contribution. The other was that I have been in all sorts of meetings and trying to keep one ear on the debate as well, because it is a debate that is very important to me. I just want to make a couple of comments and then ask a couple of questions, if I may, given that I gave up the opportunity to make a second reading contribution.The reason this is such an important bill, for me as well as for the Democrats, is that we really do believe that you are mixing up two very important principles. That is the problem we have got. I have not heard all the debate, so I am not sure if you were told that we want to support the amendments which relate to the whole issue of people smuggling, but we have fundamental objections to the original bill. I guess it is not possible now to split the two in half—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The motion to agree with the amendments has already been passed and carried.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I realise that, Madam Chairman. I am just commenting that that would have been a preferred option. I mention it because you put us in such an invidious position, given that we certainly agree with any move to restrict people smuggling. In effect it is akin to slavery—I think you can make that sort of comparison without going over the top.I listened very carefully to Senator Cooney, as I always do, and I think he made some very good points. I think it is a lesson for all of us that, in dealing with matters that bring out strong emotions, we really need to concentrate on the issues. I take the point Senator Cooney made about some of the statements made in the second reading speech. I heard your explanation, Parliamentary Secretary, but nevertheless I still have some worries about saying things about the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Chris Sidoti. I worked with him for over 20 years, so it does worry me a bit. I worked with him when he was Executive Officer of the Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace and I was the Convenor of the National Assembly Commission on Social Responsibility of the Uniting Church. This is the problem we were facing; thank you for the answer. It is not possible, of course, to go back over that particular issue.The Democrats, and I in particular, are so opposed to the original legislation because it contradicts—and I have said this in a couple of speeches previously—3,000 years of tradition in this area. The whole issue of caring for the foreigner and the stranger is absolutely fundamental to Hebrew ethics and Christian ethics. I will not make my passionate speech; I have promised not to do that. But I wonder, Parliamentary Secretary, if the government makes a distinction between those who have been dumped in this country by opportunistic people and people who have genuinely been subject to human rights abuses and are genuine refugees. I think there is a distinction between the two, and I think the problem with this bill is that we have mixed up these two very important principles.I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might respond to this question: does the government see a distinction between those who are being dumped here—such as those who have recently been brought over here on boats—and those who are here as genuine refugees threatened with abuse of their human rights, such as the spectacular example of someone being taken back to China? Does the government have a concern that we might be mixing up two distinct categories of people?17:19:006967Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I will respond to a couple of things that Senator Woodley said—and he did admit that he had half an ear on the debate. The first thing is that I did say to Senator Cooney that I thought some people read too much into the second reading speech. In no way was there meant to be any criticism of Mr Sidoti. I want to make that very clear. The second thing is that this is not an appropriate time for me to have a long theological debate with Senator Woodley about Hebrew ethics, about who is the more moral or who can take the highest stand. But I have to say, Senator Woodley, that I have examined this closely and I can live with it.I believe that there are messages that have to go out. People are profiteering by charging people anything up to $US40,000 to travel to Australia on an unsafe boat. There have been some cases where ships have sunk, and people have had their lives put at risk by being placed in ships not fit for live cattle. On inspection, the hygiene in those ships is appalling and the food is atrocious. The people who are benefiting are those who are involved in people smuggling, and it is now a worldwide trade. The message that the whole world has to put out is that that is not on.Yes, we are concerned about making sure that we identify those people who have been duped and those people who are genuine refugees. The government is totally committed to making sure that we do everything possible to identify those who are genuine refugees as opposed to those poor unfortunate people—some are not so unfortunate because they have tried it a couple of times—who are escaping from economic situations (and we wish the world was a better place) and are not genuine refugees in the sense that we assess people as genuine refugees.I remain committed to ensuring that we do everything in our power to identify those who are genuine refugees, but we must also ensure that the message goes back very clearly to those source countries; and we are doing everything in our power to make sure that people are advised before they come. The Secretary to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has recently been to China to speak with the officials and to seek their cooperation in ensuring that these people are told of the risks before they come, particularly in source areas where there is more risk. I think it would be inappropriate for us to be working at this end to protect ourselves but not doing something to ensure that those people who are most at risk from these unscrupulous traffickers are advised to the best of our ability and encouraging the source countries to do something about it as well.We have had meetings at the highest level—at the level of secretary to the department—to try to convey to those source countries, in particular one or two of them, that it is unacceptable in Australia for this to happen. We have had positive responses, but it is going to take a while for the message to get across.17:23:006968McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—By way of an aside, Australia's assessment of whether a person is a refugee or not is in accord with the United Nations Convention on Refugees and the various protocols that flow from that. It is an international convention.I feel compelled to rise following Senator Woodley's question of the parliamentary secretary and the possible confusion about the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 [1999] . The opposition have considered the bill and its predecessor very carefully. We have decided to support the bill and indeed the amendments, as I have indicated. From a personal perspective, I have participated in two Senate inquiries into the current bill and its predecessor. I might say that, in formulating my own opinion on the matter of delivering material to persons held in detention, I was guided by the protocol that existed between the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I did make the explanation in my second reading contribution that the protocol was not a signed, sealed and delivered legal document between the parties, but nonetheless it was a document which I believe was adhered to by both parties in the preparation of the bill and in the expectation of its passage.I think that it would be useful to put the draft protocol on the record. It is not a protocol in the strictest sense of the word because it has not been signed off, but it sets the scene if, for whatever reason, we have to revisit the issue at a later time. I seek leave to incorporate the draft protocol in Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—This paper has been prepared for discussion on a "without prejudice" basis.PROTOCOL DISCUSSION PAPERThe Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the Commission) and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the Department) agree to the following protocol on the basis that. people who are not Australian citizens or the holders of current visas are not entitled under Australian law to be at liberty in Australia. Section 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) requires the detention of a non-citizen who does not hold a visa and section 198 requires that such a person be removed from Australia as soon as is reasonably practicable. the Department's primary objective in relation to unauthorised arrivals is to ensure that they are managed effectively and efficiently and in accordance with Australia's international obligations, in particular concerning asylum claimants. For these reasonsi. they should have their claims processed as expeditiously as possible, andii. they should not engage in unwarranted and lengthy processing and litigation• the Commission's primary objective in relation to Australia's immigration processing procedures is to ensure that they comply with Australia's human rights laws and its international human rights treaty obligationsThe following steps outline the Commission's response to a complaint from a third party concerning unauthorised arrivals in detention. The procedure will be undertaken having regard toi. the Human Rights Commissioner's obligation to inquire with due diligenceii. the Department's obligations under the Migration Act to remove unauthorised arrivals.Both parties to the protocol accept that the processing or return of detainees will not be hindered, prevented or delayed because of an inquiry by the Commission.1. On receiving a complaint from a third party regarding unauthorised arrivals in detention the Commission will assess the complaint in relation to s.20 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (the Act). This may result ini. requesting further information from the complainantii. initially accepting the complaint on the basis of the information provided for further investigationiii. declining to inquire into the complaint pursuant to s.20(2) of the Act and, where relevant, referring the issue to the Department for consideration, oriv. declining to inquire into the complaint pursuant to s.20(2) of the Act and referring it to another authority and, where relevant, referring the issue to the Department for consideration.2. If the complaint is accepted the Commission will write to the Department outlining the nature of the complaint and request a response.3. The Commission will provide the complainant with the Department's response and request comment and/or additional information.4. The Commission will review the complainant's response and eitheri. make a preliminary decision on the complaintii determine to investigate further, oriii. decline to inquire into the complaint pursuant to s.20(2) of the Act.The Commission will not normally need to contact detainees where the complainti. does not give rise to any facts in dispute, orii. does not provide some basis for the matters complained of. 5. If the Commission is of the view that further investigation is warranted which requires contact with the detainee or nominated spokesperson for a group of detainees the Commission will provide the Department with the reasons why it believes such contact is required and seek the agreement of the Department oni. how the contact with the detainee or nominated spokesperson will take placeii. the substance of the contact.The contact with detainees should only be necessary where there are facts in dispute and the Department, having been given an opportunity, cannot meet the Commission's information needs. Contact will be restricted to the specifics of the complaint and be subject to the agreement set out at point 7. The Commission will advise the detainee to take up with the Department issues raised beyond the specifics of the complaint.If the complaint relates to any of the specific issues in point 7 the Commission's contact with the detainee will be pursued in a non-leading fashion. Where contact is made, inquiries will be couched in terms which would not encourage the detainee to pursue unwarranted claims and which are limited to the specifics of the complaint.6. If the Department objects to the Commission contacting the detainees, the parties agree to attempt to resolve the issue according to the following procedure:i. initial discussions at officer levelii. failing resolution at officer level, discussions at agency head level.7. In its contact with detainees the Commission will not advise directly or indirectly, orally or in writing, on any matter under the Migration Act, or on any other matter beyond the complaint being investigated, includingi. access to legal adviceii. obtaining application formsiii. making claims which detainees would otherwise not makeiv. using third parties to represent detaineesThe Commission will notv. refer detainees to third parties, orvi. provide application forms.8. The parties agree that adherence to this protocol will be monitored on a regular and ongoing basis.9. The protocol will be reviewed by both parties at the end of 12 months having regard toi. the Human Rights Commissioner's obligation to inquire with due diligence ii. the Department's obligation to remove unauthorised arrivals under the Migration Act.10. Any change to the protocol during its operation will require agreement by both parties.Third Draft as at 3/10/9617:26:006970Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I want to follow on from what Senator Woodley was saying, which somebody ought to keep in mind with legislation like this: we as legislators ought to ensure that it is the objectionable action that is caught up in this. In this case, what we objected to, and what Senator Woodley quite rightly objected to, was the trading in people. The difficulty is how to draw legislation that targets that specific group, and how to administer it. I will give an example of what I mean. Section 236 of the legislation increases the penalty to some number of years. It says:A person must:. . . . . . . . .(b) without reasonable excuse have in his or her possession or under his or her control a visa that was not granted to him or herIf you came across a person or a group of people who were trafficking in illegal migrants and had visas in his or her possession, then you would say that that ought to be punished, but say you had a mother and a wife who had in her possession five or six visas? I cannot get myself through airports very well. I need my wife to do it for me.Senator Patterson interjecting—SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—They disappear on me. They are two quite distinct positions. As Senator Woodley said, those sorts of distinctions should be kept clearly in mind. You can make this work only if you have a process, the quality of which is kept high. You need a judicial system or a system of tribunals to make sure that all this is properly kept in line. Fortunately the Australian Federal Police are sensible and go-ahead, but unless you have people who are able to police sensibly and unless you have a system of courts that oversee all this, you are really going to run into all sorts of problems trying to administer sections of acts which must be drawn widely.17:29:006970Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I think that was more in the way of a general comment, and I will draw the minister's attention to it.17:29:006970Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Very quickly, Parliamentary Secretary, thank you for your answers to my questions before. They were very good. Let me say that I am well aware of your compassion. I do not think I would want to ever cast aspersions on that, but I do disagree with the government and I find part of the bill very objectionable. That certainly does not cast any personal reflection on you.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.6970Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Documents6970697017:31:006970McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.697017:36:006970Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—The report of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council deals with the way we are policed throughout Australia. What I am about to say leads on from what I was saying before about how essential it is for the proper running of our community and our society that the people we have policing it are of the highest quality. We do not have any problems about that in Australia. Over the years, of course, there have been inquiries but, as things now stand, we have a high level of policing. We have a number of forces which are known for their integrity and things are running well. The police force we have most to do with at the federal level is, of course, the Australian Federal Police. That body comes before the committee chaired by Senator Payne, and Senator McKiernan is the deputy chair. We hear from that committee and we can assure the people of Australia that that is a force that operates well.For a society to operate as it should, we need good police forces and good courts, which we clearly have. We have to have rules that the community respects and follows. There are occasions where the proper organisations we have—proper in the sense of being appropriate for the sort of society we want—are ignored. There is one case that illustrates this that has come up in recent times in New South Wales and that is the case of John Lewthwaite. This case shows that society should embrace those that are the most unattractive, if you like. Any decent society will treat properly those in it that society as a whole has the least sympathy for. Given the history of what John Lewthwaite did, the reaction to that crime is understandable, but as a society we have set up institutions which enable us to manifest the sort of people we are.We are a group of people who not only want to see crime suppressed but also want to see criminals punished. If we adopt and live by the principles that Senator Woodley talked about—the Hebrew ethic, the ethic of the Bible, the ethic that has been carried on into the Christian tradition—and that the parliamentary secretary also referred to, then certain things follow. Indeed, if we live by any great religion or any great philosophy, certain things follow. But certainly the idea of redemption is very strongly impregnated in the tradition that has been spoken of by Senator Patterson and by Senator Woodley and we must, as a society, vindicate that concept of redemption.John Lewthwaite went through the parole system, the system set up by society which said that it was proper at this time to release him, in line with the sorts of traditions I have talked about and in line with the idea of redemption. We should not as a society reject the very institutions which underpin it. The parole board in this case made a responsible decision and we should as a society respect that decision. It is disturbing to see, even though it is understandable, a reaction that comes very close to a lynch law reaction to the decisions of a properly organised and instituted body. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous6971697117:37:006971Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—On Wednesday, 28 April 1999, Hansard page 3800, Senator Bolkus asked Senator Vanstone why the Prime Minister did not raise at the recent Premiers Conference the question of Victorian compliance with the national gun laws. The Prime Minister has provided an answer to the honourable senator's question, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Guns Buyback Scheme; CompensationOn Wednesday, 28 April 1999, Hansard p3800, Senator Bolkus asked Senator Vanstone why the Prime Minister didn't raise at the recent Premiers' Conference the question of Victorian compliance with the national gun laws.The Prime Minister has provided an answer to the honourable Senator's question which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard .The question of Victorian compliance with the National Agreement on Firearms was not discussed at the Premiers' Conference of 9 April. Neither the Commonwealth nor the States sought to raise the issue. Senator Bolkus's suggestion that I promised to raise the issue is incorrect. On A Current Affair on 24 February 1999, I stated that I was interested in raising the drug problem at the Premiers' Conference but did not refer to raising firearms issues.There has been an exchange of correspondence between the Victorian Premier and myself about the National Firearms Agreement, and it remains a matter for discussion between Victoria and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is awaiting an indication from Victoria that it will amend its firearms legislation to bring it fully into line with the National Agreement by repealing provisions widening access to semi-automatic (category C) firearms. Until that is done, the Commonwealth will continue to take into account non-compliance with the National Firearms Agreement when considering requests for compensation.Adjournment697210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.697217:37:006972Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—This evening I rise to make some comments with respect to the report of the royal commission into the Longford gas plant disaster which occurred last year. As senators are aware, on 25 September last year a major explosion and fire occurred in Gas Plant 1 at the Longford gas plant. Two employees, Mr John Lowery and Mr Peter Wilson, tragically lost their lives in that disaster. Eight other employees were injured and massive disruption occurred to the lives of Victorian citizens and to businesses.I rise to make these comments this evening because, firstly, as I am sure all senators are aware, I have a background as an official of the Australian Workers Union and as an employee of that union for over 18 years. During that time I was integrally involved in the oil industry and, on many occasions, I visited the Longford gas plant. Indeed, on a number of occasions I argued cases before the Industrial Relations Commission and negotiated with Esso over issues, including manning at that plant and at other plants including Long Island Point and the offshore installations.Whilst we all hoped that the operations of those plants were safely carried out, there were occasions when the members of the union, the workers at those plants, expressed the view that manning levels were not adequate and that indeed the company's proposals to reduce manning could well give rise to safety concerns.Like many Australians, I was therefore very distressed when I heard the news about the explosion at Longford. During the royal commission inquiry I refrained from making any public comment in this chamber or elsewhere because I believed that it was appropriate for the royal commission to be able to conduct its inquiry free from any undue, unnecessary or improper influence. I have to say that now that the royal commission report has come down it is abundantly clear that the attitude adopted by the company, Esso, was nothing short of disgraceful. Esso's tactics were to endeavour to blame everyone else except themselves. In particular, in a most disgraceful attempt, they sought to blame one of the workers, an operator, Mr Jim Ward, for the disaster that day—a disaster that, as I said, claimed the lives of two of Mr Ward's work mates and injured eight others. They also sought to attribute some blame to another employee, a Mr Rawson.I was pleased to be able to read this week, when the royal commission report came down, that Mr Ward has been completely exonerated. The royal commission has laid the blame squarely on Esso and, to an extent, on the Victorian government and the failures of the regulatory system to ensure an adequate safe working environment at the plant. I will quote briefly from summaries of the report contained in newspapers earlier this week, firstly from the Herald Sun:The royal commission found Esso had not learned from a similar incident a month before the September 25 blast.It found Esso failed to train its workers adequately, put in safe operating procedures and conduct crucial safety audits.It said cost-cutting by Esso might have contributed to the disaster because of repeated delays to safety audits of the plant.It goes on further:Royal commission chairman Sir Daryl Dawson said it was design limitations of the plant, not inaction by workers, that caused the fire to worsen after the initial blast.Then there is a direct quote from the judge, Sir Daryl Dawson:"Their attempts to isolate the plant, rescue the injured and initiate fire suppression measures were not only wholly appropriate but, in view of the personal danger they faced, also heroic," he says in the report.He states workers at the gas plant, plagued with problems on the morning of the blast, did not know of the dangers they faced. "Nor did those charged with the supervision of the operations have the necessary knowledge," the commission found.This lack of knowledge was blamed directly on a deficiency in their training.The royal commission concluded that the ultimate cause of the fire was the failure of Esso to equip its employees with appropriate knowledge to deal with events that occurred. It had failed to provide the necessary information in the form of appropriate operating procedures. It found that Esso breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to maintain a working environment safe and without risks to health. It found that the lack of knowledge of operators and supervisors was directly attributable to a deficiency in their initial or subsequent training. I just make the comment that, not only do plant operators in refineries and gas plants such as Longford have the duties of operating the plant, they also are the front-line fire crew in any emergency situation such as occurred at Longford on that fateful day.I find it absolutely disgusting that any company, particularly a company such as Esso, should seek to avoid its responsibility by laying the blame for such a tragedy on its workers. Mr Ward has clearly been subjected to terrible stress during this inquiry. He stated:To see two of your workmates get killed, to drag burnt bodies out of the fires and see those people now with their families struggling to recover and get over the physical trauma and the mental trauma . . . That alone was enough to try to cope with, then I had to defend myself in the royal commission from my own employer, who I've worked with for nearly 19 years.To have them turn around and say things about me and to me that incriminated me with respect to killing my workmates and injuring my workmates—I don't know how I can describe it.An apology would probably be a bit hollow at this stage.It may be a bit hollow and certainly Mr Ward is entitled to feel the way he does. In their actions following this report Esso have again demonstrated their callous attitude. They are not even offering a semblance of an apology either to Mr Ward or to the many workers at that plant. I conclude by saying that some years ago a book was written called The Other Price of Britain's Oil . It was written by a person called Kit Carson. He foretold in that book problems that would eventuate, particularly in the offshore oil industry in Britain, as a result of the failure by the then Thatcher government to properly allow and apply—in fact, the government prohibited them—the application of health and safety laws on the offshore platforms. In probably the worst tragedy in the history of the oil industry in the world in 1988 the Piper Alpha platform exploded in the North Sea and 167 workers lost their lives.Clearly, there is a need for Esso and the Victorian government to apply themselves to improving the regulatory system in Victoria. It is not simply good enough to rely upon what is called the safety case system where companies themselves have a safety plan and they largely have the responsibility for implementing it. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that employers such as Esso do what they are required to do.Finally, I pay a tribute to the Australian Workers Union and the other unions who have stood by these workers through that disaster. Particularly, I pass on my sympathy to the families of Mr Lowery and Mr Wilson, who perished in that tragedy. I acknowledge, as we all should, not only that they were innocent victims but that they indeed were heroes.697317:47:006973Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—No government in the history of Australia has supported and fought for the timber communities of this country as has the Liberal-National coalition, nor on the other side of the equation has there been a government that has delivered environmental outcomes for this nation as has the Liberal-National Party coalition. I refer to the Natural Heritage Trust, Green Corps and the fantastic outcomes that have been achieved through regional forest agreements and the national forest policy statement processes that were commenced—to give credit where credit is due—by those on the opposite side of the chamber.When we came into government, we committed ourselves to the regional forest agreement process. In fact, we have been able to effect a number of outcomes for the benefit of both the timber communities, the workers and the communities that rely on the incomes from the timber industry. This government remains committed to bringing in legislation to, in effect, overarch or tie together all those existing regional forest agreements around the country and those that are still in the process of being finalised.My home state of Tasmania, and yours, Mr Acting Deputy President Murphy—and I note the presence of the Government Whip, Senator Calvert, in the chamber—is heavily reliant on the timber industry. There are many small and large townships right around our state that are heavily dependent on the forest industry. The people of Tasmania and indeed Australia who are reliant on timber for their livelihood are very supportive of the regional forest agreement process. It is a matter of regret that within this session we were unable to deal with the regional forest agreement legislation. Certain suggestions and allegations have been made about that. Suffice it to say that the bottom line in all this is that the numbers were not in the Senate to be able to provide the guillotine and the gag on the guillotine to deliver the outcome that I and many others would have desired.Indeed, as I understand it, neither the Labor Party, the Democrats nor the Independents were prepared to be supportive of such a move. If the government had moved in such a direction, there is no doubt that the guillotine motion that would have been moved by the government would have been filibustered out and we would still not have had the outcome which, unfortunately, was not forthcoming. It is with regret that the legislation has not been passed in this session, but the real issue for this country and for the workers in the forest industry is to put the pressure on the Australian Labor Party when the Senate resumes to support the legislation and not amend it.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Why don't we sit tomorrow?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Robert Ray says, `Why don't we sit tomorrow?' The problem is, Senator Ray—and this is one of the dangers of interjecting on a topic about which you know absolutely nothing—that the Labor Party is committed to moving a substantial amendment to our legislation.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—True.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator O'Brien has indicated that that is their intention, but that substantial amendment is opposed by the Tasmanian Labor government and by the CFMEU, the trade union which allegedly looks after forest workers. So the government is in a situation where, even if it had put the legislation on the table, the result would have been such that the people of Tasmania and indeed those interested in the forest industry would not have been able to get the sort of result they wanted.In fact, the assertion made by the CFMEU and the state Labor government of Tasmania is that if the legislation is amended as Labor is suggesting, this will in fact gut the legislation and not deliver outcomes to those timber workers that Senator Murphy in his former life used to represent. It is astounding how sensitive certain elements of the Australian Labor Party are, when we know the divisions that exist on that side over this issue. The state Labor government in Tasmania fully supports the legislation. They sent the Deputy Premier over to the hearings of the committee, arguing and urging that the legislation be passed unamended. He does not support the sorts of amendments being suggested by Labor.These amendments would make each RFA a disallowable instrument as a result of which the RFA process, which was to provide 20-year certainty both for conservation and industry outcomes, would in effect have been negated, given the numbers in the Senate. I urge all the people associated with the timber industry—the workers and the communities—to lobby their Labor senators to ensure that when the parliament resumes they vote for the government's legislation, which is designed to protect jobs and communities and ensure a future for an industry which has been providing support to their families on an ongoing basis for generations.Opposition senators interjecting—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Labor Party senators can interject as much as they like, but the reality is that, during this winter break from the parliament, the timber workers will be asking all Labor senators—FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Why didn't you bring the legislation in? Why don't you go and read the statements?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Well, Senator Murphy, would you have supported the gag and guillotine on our legislation as it stands? The answer is no, because Senator Murphy has succumbed to the champagne of Canberra and forgotten his roots—about looking after the workers that he used to represent in the forest union. You have forgotten those workers and their communities, and you now run around with the champagne charlies in the Labor Party. You have forgotten your roots, Senator Murphy, and I am sure that the people of Tasmania will be reminding you what they want out of this legislation. The CFMEU and the state Labor government supports this legislation. The big question is: why is it that the Australian Labor Party will not support the legislation being proposed by the government? They want to make amendments to the legislation which in effect will gut it.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Tell the truth!N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator O'Brien says, `Tell the truth.' In that case, your Labor Deputy Premier, Paul Lennon, is not telling the truth and you might like to talk to him about why that is so. Besides being unparliamentary and disorderly, I might suggest that Senator O'Brien, the former president of the TTLC in Tasmania, thinks about the workers for a change and not about his concerns, which are to derail every proposal that the government comes up with because he never concentrates on the national good. I urge all Tasmanian timber workers to lobby Labor senators to support the legislation as printed to ensure an outcome which Tasmania and indeed the timber communities all around Australia so desperately need.697517:57:006975Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I am almost tempted to speak on the same issue, but I actually wanted to speak on something entirely different. On Tuesday, 8 June, the report of the Forde Commission inquiry into the Abuse of children in Queensland institutions was tabled in the Queensland parliament. As the Australian Democrat responsible for this portfolio, I want to place on the public record our complete support for the inquiry's 42 recommendations, some of which I shall touch on in this speech, and also my own personal support for the Premier in making sure that this commission of inquiry took place.Before I do that, I want to congratulate not only the Premier but also the government for establishing this much needed inquiry nearly 12 months ago. I would also like to congratulate Commissioner Leneen Forde and her fellow commissioners and staff for the manner in which they conducted this inquiry and produced such a comprehensive report. This was an inquiry that was born of necessity and in considerable controversy. I will say a little bit more about that as well. The commission's findings are daunting, heart wrenching and overdue. In the foreword to her report, Mrs Forde said:I have been impressed by the courage of those who came forward, often moved by the hardship they have endured, and saddened that such abuses were somehow permitted to take place. The accounts that I have heard and read have left a lasting impression, and I will never forget them.For all those who came forward to tell their stories, and to all the victims of abuse in institutions, I dedicate this report to you, and hope that it will be a small step on the long road to healing and reparation.Might I also add that we could have picked no-one better to conduct this inquiry than the former governor of Queensland, Leneen Forde, whose own commitment to these kinds of issues is well known; I commend her. In the conclusion to her report, Mrs Forde said:I urge all Queenslanders to contemplate the experiences of children in institutions, how it came to pass that many of them were abused and mistreated, and why it has taken so long for their stories to be told. It was society that failed those children. In acknowledging that, we must ensure that the same wrongs are not repeated, and that this inquiry has a positive outcome.The Democrats endorse those sentiments wholeheartedly. The harrowing stories recounted in the Forde report should concern this chamber greatly, because the child abuse occurred against children under the guardianship of the state and the church. Where there should have been a haven, too many children found terror and abuse.The abuse took many forms. It was unrestrained in some cases because it was perpetrated on defenceless children who had nowhere to run or hide, nowhere to seek refuge, only to endure in silence year after year. The scars inflicted on their very young minds are indelible, and for that we should all feel a very deep shame.I was moved by some of the scenes at Parliament House, where the victims were granted permission to finally stop grieving. For some it must have been a rebirth, and their journey towards self-esteem and community acceptance had reached a new stage when the Queensland parliament, through the commission, accepted their stories and the Queensland government gave a commitment to implement the wide ranging recommendations born out of their suffering. Out of their personal tragedies and suffering in their youth—and from living with their nightmares until they could speak of them publicly—some good had finally come to them as adults.Let me read into the record some of the recommendations of the report. They include: closing the Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Detention Centre by the end of 2000; refurbishing the John Oxley and Cleveland youth detention centres, as a matter of urgency; the conduct of regular inspection and monitoring of residential care facilities and juvenile detention centres, as specified by legislation; the provision of advocacy services for young people in institutions; the mandatory reporting of all abusive situations that come to the attention of staff; and police investigations into some cases of abuse.Let me add that, because of my own situation and my previous parallel occupation, I feel a deep shame on behalf of the various churches of Queensland that some of that abuse occurred in church run institutions. I do not single out any church in particular, because nearly all of the church run institutions had one case or more of this kind of abuse.It cannot go unsaid that the Queensland government and this chamber know that this story is unfinished. The facts of the abuse, and the culture that produced the abuse, were revealed by whistleblowers. I include here someone whom I have spoken about on many occasions, Mr Kevin Lindeberg. For years we have seen the struggle of Mr Lindeberg to reveal the truth about the shredding of the Heiner inquiry documents—documents that we now know revealed the full extent of the information that the Queensland government had on the abuse of children in state institutions. Also worthy of mention are journalists Mr Bruce Grundy of the Weekend Independent and Mr Michael Ware of the Courier-Mail. Both of these people, at some cost to themselves, persisted in revealing the truth and the attempt to cover up the truth.I want to finish this speech on a positive note. The Beattie government is to be commended for establishing the Forde inquiry. It was an act of courage and decency. Justice, in large measure, has been done for many people who suffered abuse as children when they should have been loved and cared for. If government is about anything, it should be about caring for our children.But I say to the Queensland government, and even to this chamber: there is still serious unfinished business to attend to concerning the Heiner shredding. The shredding of the Heiner report is part of the reason that this abuse went on for so long without intervention. In that context, the culture of these institutions went unchallenged for all those extra years. The healing then has also taken longer. We owe it to the victims not to regard this report as the end of the matter.697718:05:006977Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise this evening to inform the Senate and the public of Australia about a historic day tomorrow in the Northern Territory. Unlike last year, I am not going to speak about Territory Day—a day of significance that we celebrate in the Territory with fireworks—but about a day of significance for Aboriginal people in the Territory, and that is the inauguration of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Act 1999 was passed by the Northern Territory parliament on 1 June 1999. What does that mean and what significance does that have? Up until today there has been an institution in the Northern Territory called Batchelor College and, with the passing of 1 July tomorrow and this act by the Northern Territory parliament, this institution now becomes an independent institution in its own right.Batchelor College specialises in the provision of higher education and vocational education and training programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, mainly from remote and traditionally oriented communities of the Northern Territory, but also from other parts of northern Australia and elsewhere. The college seeks to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people achieve their aspirations of community self-determination and self-management by providing recognised and nationally accredited para-professional and professional education and training. All the courses offered are well grounded in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives. They draw on both their own and Western academic traditions of knowledge and education, which is commonly known in the Northern Territory as education `both ways'. The courses are aimed at enhancing the process of community development.Central to this challenge is the provision of courses that attempt to engage students in the task of developing appropriate responses to issues of cultural survival, maintenance, renewal and transformation. At the same time, the college's programs seek to facilitate access, equity and social justice within the context of the Australian and international social, political and economic order. The college also affirms, through its work and its courses, the aspirations to self-determination and self-management held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Close links between the college and the communities it serves have led to the development of a mixed mode form of conducting most courses, combining community based study, which is fairly unique, and research, field study and supervised work experience with short intensive residential workshops at Batchelor College or in other regional locations.From tomorrow Batchelor College will be owned and governed by its own council, made up mainly of Aboriginal people from communities and organisations around the Northern Territory. This is an important day in the history of education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout Australia. Batchelor will become the first ever education institution in Australia offering higher education courses to be owned and controlled by indigenous Australians. The changes will allow the college to confer its own accredited awards rather than those being done by the Northern Territory Minister for Education. Even though it aspires to university status, this is a long way down the track. Tomorrow is an important and significant step in achieving that.Batchelor College is located about 100 kilometres south of Darwin, near the entrance of Litchfield National Park. It began in the mid-1960s as a small annexe of Kormilda College that was then a residential school for Aboriginal students on the outskirts of Darwin, providing short training courses for Aboriginal teacher's aides and assistants in community schools. So it began predominantly as a support mechanism for Aboriginal teacher's assistants within the school system. However, in 1974, the college moved to Batchelor and has occupied its present site in the township of Batchelor since 1982. During 1990 a second campus of the college was established in Alice Springs and later in the same year annexes were opened in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, Katherine and Tennant Creek.Over the last decade, programs have expanded and diversified in response to the importance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have placed on gaining accredited awards in the areas of professional and para-professional occupations. From its beginning, the college has grown in size and now caters for about 1,900 students who come from about 250 locations not just in the Territory but across the top of Northern Australia. They study about 30 higher education or vocational education and training courses, with about half of the students enrolled in higher education programs. In addition, between 200 and 300 students undertake short-term vocational programs each year. Batchelor College enrols more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at the higher education level than any other tertiary institution in Australia. The majority of the college's students are middle-aged—between 30 and 45 years—and almost 70 per cent of them are women.In 1989, the Commonwealth government—through the Higher Education Funding Act 1988—recognised Batchelor as a higher education institution, although one outside the unified national system of higher education. In 1995, the college was granted autonomy from the Northern Territory Department of Education as an agency within the public sector. This week it becomes an independent institution.Batchelor College is governed by a council of 20 members, with a minimum of 17 positions reserved for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people representing communities and various indigenous organisations. The position of chairperson of the college council is reserved for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, and as you may not know but should, it is currently held by ATSIC Chair, Gatjil Djerrkura. The college is organised into three teaching schools—the School of Education Studies, the School of Community Studies and the School of Health Studies—and a Community Education and Training Division. Another section incorporates the college's Centre for Education Research and Development, a curriculum and materials development unit and a special teaching unit with specialist staff in the areas of adult literacy, the teaching of English as a second language, mathematics, art and craft, and computer education.This morning on radio in the Northern Territory, Gatjil Djerrkura, the chair of the college council said:It's a new era for indigenous education.He goes on to say:There is a feeling of excitement, a feeling of achievement. I think you know that it's a new challenge for indigenous people, particularly in the area of education. We've got a sense of autonomy that is recognised through the act of parliament which gives us that sort of flexibility to advance to be more creative and innovative.In conclusion, this evening I would specifically and especially like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to the retiring director of that college, Mr John Ingram. In my previous role as industrial officer with the education unions in the Territory, I worked with John. I was probably at times one of those people who may have brought a bit of pain into his life as we fought for better conditions for people who worked in the college and undertook the occasional industrial action to improve the workplace. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, Mr Ingram was always somebody who was extremely professional and was at times quite fun to work with. We developed the first award for Batchelor College, which reflects the higher education salary structure and conditions.What I specifically want to record tonight is the dedication and the hard work that John Ingram has given to that college over his many years of service. He has taken the college from being an annex of the Department of Education through to what he must feel is an exciting day tomorrow, and a day which I think he has long dreamed of. All I can say is that, while unfortunately I cannot be there for the opening ceremony today and the ceremonies that continue over the next three days, I hope that John relishes those celebrations. He has deserved every moment of it. I also commend the work of his staff and the Deputy Director, David McLeay. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms Veronica Arbon on her appointment as the inaugural director. She is an Aboriginal woman who will become the first director of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.697918:15:006979Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In the time remaining, I would like to take the opportunity to briefly once again wish all the retiring senators well and to be the first to welcome the incoming seven, who will be officially in the job from one minute past midnight tonight, including particularly my Democrat colleagues Brian Greig and Aden Ridgeway, who bring the Democrat numbers in this chamber to the highest in the party's history, which is certainly a source of great pride and excitement for the party.I also thank the staff—the clerks, the reporters and others—who worked so hard throughout the session, particularly over the last couple of weeks when we have had longer sitting hours than usual, for all their support and assistance. I hope they enjoy being able to have a slightly less hectic existence during the winter break.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—We are indeed indebted to the staff of the Senate and of the parliament generally for the service that we have received from them in this recent period and always. I wish them a pleasant break as well. The Senate stands adjourned until Monday, 9 August 1999 at 2 p.m.18:16:006979Senate adjourned at 6.16 p.m.Documents69796979The following government documents were tabled:Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—15th meeting, Adelaide, 5 March 1999.Australasian Police Ministers' Council—Administration and activities of the National Common Police Services—Report for 1997-98.Budget 1999-2000—Budget papers— No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook 1999-2000—Corrigendum. No. 2—Budget measures 1999-2000—Corrigendum. Sydney Airports Corporation Limited—Statement of corporate intent.6979The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Family Law Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 118.Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Act—Transfer Rules No. 1.National Health and Medical Research Council Act—National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans, dated June 1999.Navigation Act—Marine orders—Orders No. 15 of 1999.Public Service Act— Public Service Determination 1999/4. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1999/32-1999/40.Proclamations6979Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified:Child Support Legislation Amendment Act 1998 —1 July 1999—(a) amendments of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (other than Part 2 of Schedule 12 or Schedule 22);(b) amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 (Schedule 3); and(c) amendments of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Social Security Act 1991 (Schedule 7). (Gazette No. S 261, 17 June 1999).Wool International Privatisation Act 1999 —Schedule 2—1 July 1999 (Gazette No. S 250, 15 June 1999).Answers to Questions on Notice6980The following answers to questions were circulated:6980(Question No. 206)2066980Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 25 November 1998:(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister's portfolio, on a month-by-month basis since March 1996.(2) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms of advertising used.(3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that advertising not placed through OGIA.6980Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The value of advertising, excluding staff related gazettal, other recruitment activities and tender notices are:Month(a) Department(b) AgenciesMarch 19962,475639April 19966,76730,576May 199624,98322,180June 199612,63828,614July 199636,27033,419August 199626,82011,410September 199626,48935,376October 199647,74628,276November 199635,94510,761December 199641,39624,070January 199753,4886,786February 1997100,4215,370March 199721,70213,047April 199712,73425,647May 19978,76620,914June 199720,399750,879July 199731,98413,365August 199731,29021,960September 199724,90511,148October 199744,39123,425November 199749,32715,863December 199722,46144,402January 1998101,57631,170February 199867,34833,575March 199858,53323,418April 199898,94519,530May 199878,53327,779 June 1998115,093579,304July 199822,55344,964August 199825,57876,534September 199889,63669,058October 1998101,26994,520November 199843,08332,212Two Public Trading Enterprises (PTE), the Australian Dairy Corporation and Wool International had a total of $17,650,330 advertising over this period.(2) (a) 86.4% department and agencies; 7.4% PTE(b) 0.4% department and agencies; nil for PTE(c) 10% department and agencies; 86.9%PTE(d) 3.2% department and agencies; 5.7% PTE. This includes production of a video and advertising on the Internet, cinema, Buspak and via mailing list distribution.(3) (a) 80 per cent for the department. Portfolio agencies do not have to use OGIA arrangements.(b) The department would utilise standard purchasing procedures.6981(Question No. 615)6156981Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:With reference to the World Health Organisation committee dealing with the electromagnetic energy program, a program that has been established to investigate the potential health hazards to the public of radiofrequency radiation and extra low frequency, and the membership of that committee which is comprised of 92 individuals from 17 countries, the United States of America having 20 representatives and Europe having 37 representatives:(1) In view of the increasing number of mobile phone users in Australia, can reasons be given for the fact that Australia has only two representatives on this committee.(2) By what criteria does this committee select representatives.6981Herron, 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:I presume the honourable Senator is referring to the World Health Organisation International Advisory Committee (IAC) which has been established to oversight the WHO Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project.(1) A report of the 1997 International Advisory Committee meeting lists 4 participants from World Health Organisation (WHO), single representatives from 22 countries including Australia, 6 representatives from collaborating agencies and representatives from 7 international agencies. Australia is an active contributor to the EMF project and receives an invitation to each IAC meeting. Australia can also make written submissions directly or through the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, one of the participating international agencies of which Australia is also a member.(2) IAC membership comprises representatives of governments who have provided resources to the EMF Project, representatives of collaborating international organisations and representatives of WHO collaborating institutions working on the EMF issue. Currently there are over 40 countries, 7 WHO collaborating centres and 8 international agencies who contribute to the project. Other countries that are interested in the EMF project may send observers to the meeting.6981(Question No. 617)6176981Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the following ministers, upon notice, on 24 March 1999:617 Minister representing the Prime Minister618 Minister for the Environment and Heritage619 Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs620 Minister for Industry, Science and Resources621 Minister representing the Attorney-GeneralCan information be provided on the: (a) number; (b) dates; (c) chairmanship; (d) names of Department Foreign Affairs and Trade participants; (e) names of other participants; and (f) purpose of interdepartmental meetings on Kakadu since the Kyoto meeting in December 1998 and to the date of the answer to this question. 6982Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The following answer to the honourable senator's questions is provided on behalf of the Minister representing the Prime Minister, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and the Minister representing the Attorney-General:(a) Several.(b) The first meeting was held in December 1998. Meetings are held as necessary. Approximately 7 meetings had been held as of early April.(c), (d) and (e) I do not believe it is appropriate to identify individual officers. I can assure the Senate that all officers are acting in a professional and ethical manner. I believe they are doing an outstanding job in difficult circumstances.(f) The purpose of the interdepartmental meetings was to coordinate the Department's activities in facilitating the Australian Government response to the UNESCO Mission report regarding the potential inclusion of Kakadu on the List of World Heritage In Danger.6982(Question No. 624)6246982Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:(1) In the 1996-97 Budget what was the projected amount that would be spent on the concessional resident supplement, that is provided to providers in lieu of the accommodation charge.(2) How much has been spent on the concessional resident supplement for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years, and for the first half of the 1998-99 financial year.(3) With reference to recent estimates hearings at which the department indicated that the amount spent on the concessional resident supplement was higher than anticipated: what reasons does the department have for the higher than anticipated amount spent on the concessional resident supplement.(4) What is the average concessional resident ratio in residential aged care facilities, by: (a) state; (b) private/not-for-profit; and (c) metropolitan/rural region.6982Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A concessional resident is someone who is unable to afford to pay an accommodation bond or charge based on, among other things, the fact they have assets less than two and a half times the single rate of pension. The concessional resident supplement is payable to facilitate their access to residential care. A transitional supplement is payable to all pre 1 October 1997 nursing home residents and those hostel residents who were classified as a FDP (financially disadvantaged person) prior to 1 October 1997. Pre 1 October 1997 residents cannot be assessed for concessional resident status.The concessional resident arrangements as at the 1996-97 Budget were projected to provide $67 million in a full year if all residents were post 1 October residents. The concessional resident arrangements were revised before the structural reform of aged care was implemented on 1 October 1997. These revised arrangements provided $12 per day per concessional resident for facilities with greater than 40 per cent concessional residents, $7 per day for facilities with 40 per cent or less concessional residents and $3.50 per day for assisted residents. These arrangements were projected to provide $107 million to concessional residents in a full year if all residents were post 1 October residents. The latest projections are that $44 million would be spent in 1997-98, given the new arrangements came into effect 1 October 1997 and $112 million in 1998-99.(2) There was no expenditure on the concessional resident supplement in 1996-97 as the structural reform of aged care, of which the concessional and transitional resident supplements are components, only came into operation 1 October 1997. $44 million was spent on the concessional and transitional resident supplements in 1997-98 and $61 million has been spent to December in 1998-99. Given that the $61 million is a half-year effect, it is expected that the $112 million projected for 1998-99 will be met.(3) Expenditure on the concessional resident supplement has been higher than anticipated because there has been a higher number of concessional residents than was first expected.(4) The concessional resident ratios, based on data as at November 1998, are (a) 47.5 per cent in New South Wales, 41.5 per cent in Victoria, 48.4 per cent in Queensland, 52.9 per cent in Western Australia, 51.0 per cent South Australia, 46.7 per cent in Tasmania, 85.1 per cent in the Northern Territory, 50.2 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory; (b) 50.5 per cent in private facilities, 45.9 per cent in government and adjusted fee facilities, 45.1 per cent in religious and charitable facilities; and (c) 46.4 per cent in metropolitan facilities, 48.3 per cent in rural and remote facilities. 6983(Question No. 625)6256983Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 25 March 1999:(1) What checks have been carried out under Division 8 of the Aged Care Act 1997 on Ms Jane Cummings and Mr Peter Strauss, who currently reside in Melbourne, in order to satisfy the Secretary of the Department that they were `suitable to provide aged care'.(2) What were the recommendations to the Secretary concerning any application by Ms Cummings or Mr Strauss for approved provider status under Division 8 of the Act.(3) (a) Do the provisions of Division 8 apply to the holders of freehold titles of residential aged care facilities; and (b) how are the holders of freehold titles regulated under the Act.(4) Can the Minister: (a) confirm that Ms Cummings and/or Mr Strauss are connected, either directly or through companies and/or trusts, with the operation of residential aged care facilities in Victoria; and (b) undertake that this issue will be investigated and the Senate informed of any connection found.(5) Can the Minister: (a) confirm that through various companies and trusts Mr Strauss has an interest in the freehold titles of a number of residential aged care facilities including a nursing home in Berwick; and (b) undertake that this issue will be investigated and the Senate informed of any connection found.6983Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) Mr Peter Strauss is neither an approved provider nor part of the key personnel of an approved provider. Ms Jane Cummings was an approved operator under the National Health Act 1953 and so is taken to be an approved operator under the Aged Care Act 1997 by virtue of the Aged Care (Consequential Provisions) Act 1997.(2) See answer to (1).(3) (a) The provisions of Division 8 of the Aged Care Act 1997 apply to "approved providers". If a holder of the freehold title to a facility is also an operator, then the provisions will apply.(b) Regulation under the Act is based on a person's status as an approved provider. Holders of freehold titles of premises where aged care is delivered, and who are not approved providers, are not regulated under the Act, since they neither receive subsidies nor are responsible under the Act for any aspect of residential care.(4) (a) Ms Jane Cummings is a key person in terms of the Aged Care Act 1997 of two companies, namely F18 Investments Pty. Ltd. and Stockwell Valley Pty. Ltd. These companies are the Approved Providers under the Aged Care Act 1997 of Mornington Private Nursing Home and Berwick Nursing Home respectively. The approval under the Aged Care Act 1997 is in accordance with Part 2.1 of the Aged Care (Consequential Provisions) Act 1997.Mr Peter Strauss is not part of the key personnel of any Approved Provider under the Aged Care Act 1997. If Mr Strauss is included in an application for approved provider status as one of the key personnel, any record he may have in the provision of aged care will be taken into account in considering any such application.(b) See 4 (a) above.(5) (a) The Department does not collect information on the holders of the freehold title of residential aged care facilities except where they are also approved providers.(b) There is no power under the Aged Care Act 1997 to investigate the business circumstances of persons who neither receive subsidies nor are held responsible for care of residents.6983(Question No. 661)6616983O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 13 April 1999:(1) When did the Board of Airservices Australia (ASA) endorse the development and implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport.(2) Did the board consider a project schedule for the implementation of the plan as part of its deliberations.(3) As part of its deliberations relating to the plan did the board consider: (a) resource allocation for each task, (b) budgets for each task as well as time-lines; and (c) estimated dates for each task and subtask associated with the development and implementation of the project.(4) Can a copy be provided of the LTOP project schedule considered by the ASA board.6983Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Airservices Australia advises that the Board received the report to Government on a proposed Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport out of session in early February 1997. The report was formally noted at the 21 February 1997 Board meeting.(2) No.(3) No.(4) Not applicable.6984(Question No. 706)7066984Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 28 April 1999:With reference to the current capital activity in the residential aged care sector and, in particular, a circular sent to the industry on 22 April 1999 in which the Minister states that, `upgrades, rebuilds and new facilities worth an estimated $409 million were completed during the survey period of 1 October 1997 to 30 June 1998':(1) (a) On what information was this estimate based; and (b) can a copy of this information be provided.(2) What information was provided by the industry to support this estimate.(3) If a survey was carried out across the industry, what are the details of that survey, including the numbers surveyed, the number of responses and the distribution of those surveyed.(4) When was any information from the industry provided.(5) Of the $409 million, how much was spent: (a) on upgrades and rebuilds; (b) building new facilities; (c) on low-care facilities; (e) on high-care facilities; (f) in privately run facilities; (g) in not-for-profit facilities (h) in each state/territory; and (i) in rural/remote regions.(6) Does the $409 million include Commonwealth capital grants under the previous funding arrangements; if so, how much were these grants worth.(7) How much of the $409 million spent in this period was spent in combination with Commonwealth capital grants under the previous funding arrangements.(8) How much was provided to the sector in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years through capital grants under the previous funding arrangements.(9) Does the $409 million include the annual $10 million capital funding pool for rural areas and the $20 million special capital funding pool announced in 1998.6984Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) The estimate of $409 million was based on a survey of facilities that were required to report on their upgrading, rebuilding and new building activity. Facilities were required to report the actual cost of projects completed during the period from 1 October 1997 to 30 June 1998. The results of the survey were projected industry wide to produce the estimate.(b) A copy of the survey instrument requesting the building activity information is at Attachment A.(2) Facilities reported the actual cost of upgrading, rebuilding and new building projects completed during the period from 1 October 1997 to 30 June 1998.(3) The survey was conducted across all services (approximately 3030). The survey was completed and returned by 1685 services, or about 56% of all services. The distribution of responses and those surveyed is presented at Attachment B.(4) The survey was conducted during August and September of 1998.(5) Of the $409 million, (a) $255 million was reported as spent on upgrades and rebuilds; (b) $154 million was reported as spent on new facilities; (c) $192 million was reported as spent by low care facilities; (e) $218 million was reported as spent by high care facilities; (f) $104 million was reported as spent by private facilities; (g) $249 million was reported as spent by religious and charitable facilities (the balance of $56 million was reported as spent by Government and Ex-Government facilities); (h) The amount reported as spent in each state and territory is as follows:StateAmount reportedNSW$142 millionVIC$119 millionQLD$86 million WA$20 millionSA$27 millionTAS$13 millionACT$1.33 millionNT$0.29 million(i) $119 million was reported as being spent in rural and remote areas.(6) The survey did not include questions on whether the facilities were in receipt of Commonwealth capital funding.(7) The survey did not include questions on whether the facilities were in receipt of Commonwealth capital funding.(8) Actual Expenditure (please note that capital expenditure for these years reflects capital grant approvals for years before 1996-97): 1996-97—$105.2 million; 1997-98—$39.8; million; 1998-99—$26.4 million to 30 April 1999.(9) The $409 million does not include funding from the Targeted Capital Assistance pool or the Industry Restructuring pool as this funding was not taken up by industry until after the survey period.Attachment AThe Building Activity Data Collection Instrumentcopies of the attachment are available from the Table OfficeAttachment BDistribution of responses.RegionFacilitiesResponsesResponse RateCapital174990651.8%Other metropolitan20611957.8%Rural98662363.2%Remote843744.0%StateACT221359.1%NSW95554256.8%NT15746.7%QLD48627656.8%SA31218158.0%TAS1057874.3%VIC84843150.8%WA28215755.7%Facility TypeHostel150988858.8%NursingHome145576952.9%New612845.9%Facility Size0-20 residents51525749.9%21-40 residents128775658.7%>40 residents122367254.9%6986(Question No. 709)7096986Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1999:With reference to the answer to question on notice No. 515:(1) Who were the `third parties' that contributed information to each of the following regional forest agreement (RFA) data sets: (a) forest vegetation communities; (b) rare or threatened forest communities; (c) forest vegetation classes; (d) high quality old-growth forest of national estate significance; (e) rare, endangered or uncommon old-growth forests of national estate significance; (f) old-growth forests; (g) species site locations for the comprehensive regional assessment; (h) timber harvesting history; (i) forest users' survey; and (j) business dependency survey.(2) For each of the data sets in (1): (a) what is an estimate of the proportion of the total data set that was provided by third parties; (b) what conditions did each of the third party information contributors place on the use of their data during RFA development and availability of their data after the RFA was signed; and (c) which data owners required the data to be classified as `restricted'.(3) If one data owner specifies that access to his, her or its data should be restricted, is the whole data set then classified as restricted; if so, why.(4) Can electronic copies be provided of the data sets listed in (1).6986Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised that third parties who contributed to the listed data sets included individuals, private businesses and companies. For some of these data sets there were large numbers of contributors. The identity of the individual contributors is restricted in deference to assurances regarding individual privacy and the protection of commercial confidentiality and, in some cases, to protect the values represented in the data sets. The identity of third party data owners and data providers is held by the particular Data Custodians listed in the RFA, should it be necessary to contact them in relation to a formal application to the relevant Data Custodians for access to the data sets.(2) (a) and (b) I am advised that it is difficult to provide clear estimates of the proportions of the jointly owned data sets provided by third parties as this information was not required when specifications for the data sets were drawn up. The data sets listed at (1) (a) to (f) include a substantial propor tion of private forest data. The information about private forests was derived from the 1995 Private Forest Resources Inventory, for which information was supplied by private landowners and industrial companies on condition that it would only be made available on a restricted basis. The data supplied by third parties for the data sets listed at (1) (g)—threatened species locations—is also substantial. As was noted in the answer to question on notice no. 515, this information is restricted in order to protect the values to which it relates. In relation to the data set at (1) (h), at the time of the Regional Forest Agreement, roughly 30 per cent of Tasmanian Forests were privately owned. As a result, it is estimated that a similar proportion of the data (ie 30 per cent) came from private sources and would therefore be restricted on the basis of commercial confidentiality. Please note that this is an estimate only and relates only to this category. Data sets at (1) (i) and (j) contain almost 100 per cent unit record information collected from surveys of individuals and businesses, which are subject to confidentiality provisions. As part of the surveys, all respondents were assured that no identifiable unit record information would be released and that the only publicly available data would be in aggregate format and would only be used for the purposes of the Comprehensive Regional Assessment/RFA social assessment process.(c) I am advised that much of the data relating to private forests was obtained on the basis of assurances that individual personal or business details would not be publicly released. Some data providers were also concerned about the need to protect the particular values represented in the data set, for example threatened species locations.(3) Yes. The protection of the "restricted" category can only be provided to data classified as such if the entire data set is classified at that level. I am advised that the integrity of the RFA processes and of future related projects relies upon achieving cooperation with a range of data owners or data providers for supply of their data. This cooperation is underpinned by the commitment of governments to honour the conditions placed on use of the data by data owners or providers.(4) I am advised that electronic copies of the data sets listed at (1) cannot be provided in response to this question. As advised in the answer to question on notice no. 515, Clause 90 and Attachment 14 of the Tasmanian RFA set out the conditions governing access and use of restricted and other data sets. Some of the data sets are in electronic form, as indicated under Data Type in Attachment 14 of the RFA. Formal application to the Data Custodians (listed in Attachment 14 of the Tasmanian RFA) for access to the electronic data sets would be considered on its merits, with due regard given to such matters as the intended use of the data and any relevant technical considerations.6987(Question No. 983)9836987Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 May 1999:With reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and the recommendation that the Government request the Australian Bureau of Statistics in compiling its annual survey of employment to compile comprehensive employment information for each regional forest agreement (RFA) region regarding the number of people employed directly and indirectly in the following categories: natural forest areas, plantation forest areas (private and public), the tourism industry, the service industry, and other industries operating within each RFA region:(1) What steps has the Government taken to implement this recommendation.(2) Will the recommendation be implemented; if so, when.6987Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Government welcomed the majority report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998. The Government will respond to the recommendation regarding the survey of annual employment, and the other recommendations, in the context of Senate consideration of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998.(2) See answer to question (1).6987(Question No. 987)9876987O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not. (3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and 9e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6987Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have provided me with the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question:Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC has not been employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a consultant during the period specified in the question.6987(Question No. 990)9906987O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996, if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process, if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy. (5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process, if not, why not.6988Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:No.6988(Question No. 992)9926988O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6988Alston, 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 questions:There has been no work undertaken by Mr Robertson QC for the Minister or this Department since March 1996. 6988(Question No. 993)9936988O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged (c;) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and ( e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6988Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) to (6) No.6988(Question No. 999)9996988O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not. (3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6989Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Neither my office nor my Department has engaged Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC as a consultant since March 1996.6989(Question No. 1000)10006989O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Question No. 1000) and the Minister for Justice and Customs (Question No. 1003), upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process, if not, why not(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged: (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so; (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6989Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows:I am advised that Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC has not been engaged as a consultant to the department, the Attorney-General or myself, in the period since March 1996.6989(Question No. 1007)10076989O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.6989Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The Minister for Sport and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Neither my office nor the Department of Industry, Science and Resources has engaged Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC as a consultant since March 1996. 6990(Question No. 1015)10156990Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator Ferris5L6SALP10 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 June 1999:What was the total cost between 1 March 1995 and 1 March 1996 of the provision of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals to the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating's: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state ministerial office; (c) official residences; and (d) private home.6990Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that the costs are as follows:(a) and (b) $44,360; (c) $4,662.50 (total cost for The Lodge and Kirribilli House); and (d) nil.6990(Question No. 1101)11016990O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.6990Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) There are no programs or grants administered by the Treasury that are specifically directed to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) N/A.(3) N/A.6990(Question No. 1107)11076990O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass. (2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.6990Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Defence Family Support Program provides funds to support projects and services initiated by Defence families, and is available to existing groups in the community composed of, or benefiting, Defence families.(2) Funding from the Defence Family Support Program of $3,520 and $2,025 in financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively, was provided to the Northern Tasmanian Defence Family Support Group.(3) The 1999-2000 Appropriations include provision of $1.250m for the Defence Family Support Program Australia wide. No eligible organisations from the electorate of Bass have applied for funding in 1999-2000, accordingly no provision has been made for funding.6990(Question No. 1110)11106990O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.6990Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) R&D Start Program; Business Networks Program; School Industries Links Demonstration Program; R&D Tax Concession Program; Tariff Export Concession Scheme; Textile Clothing and Footwear Imports Credits Scheme; Passenger Motor Vehicle Export Facilitation Scheme; Technology Diffusion Program; Project By-law Scheme; and Regional Minerals Program.Invest Australia, through its major projects facilitation service, has assisted since 1995 the now operational Starwood Medium Density Fibre Project which is located in Bass. (2)Program1997-98YTD 1998-99$$R&D Start Program555,800660,100Business Networks Program44,80015,000School Industries Links Demonstration Program41,200-Expenditure claimed 26,000,000Revenue Foregone 2,000,000R&D Tax Concession ProgramNA (tax concession claimed retrospectively)Tariff Export Concession SchemeDuty forgone 5,100-Textile Clothing and Footwear Imports Credits SchemeDuty forgone 202,000Duty forgone 20,900Passenger Motor Vehicle Export Facilitation SchemeDuty forgone 2,502,900Duty forgone 2,035,900Technology Diffusion Program5,000-Project By-law Scheme-96,100Regional Minerals Program-60,000(3) R&D Start ProgramWithin the appropriation for R&D Start it is estimated that payments of approximately $390,000 will be made during 1999/2000 to organisations in the Bass electorate.Technology Diffusion Program; Nil to date.The Project By-law scheme; NilRegional Minerals Program; $1 million in 1999-2000 and $4 million in 2000-2001 for infrastructure development in northern Tasmania.6991(Question No. 1112)11126991O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years. (3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial years.6991Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) People living in the electorate of Bass may benefit from a wide range of departmental programs and services. The following is a summary of the more specifically identifiable programs and grants which assist people living in that electorate:(a) My Department provides assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass under the Grants for Migrant Community Services, which includes the Community Settlement Services (CSS) Scheme and Migrant Resource Centres /Migrant Service Agencies (MRCs/MSAs).The CSS Scheme provides a subsidy to non-profit community and service organisations to deliver settlement assistance targeted to the needs of refugees, humanitarian entrants and migrants who have demonstrated settlement needs.MRCs/MSAs assist in meeting the settlement needs of overseas-born residents, particularly those who have arrived in Australia recently. CSS SchemeThe following organisations, which are located in the federal electorate of Bass, have received funds under the CSS Scheme in 1997/98 and 1998/99.1997/98:Launceston ChineseMigrant Resource Centre (MRC) of Northern Tasmania.Women Born Overseas Wynyard (Auspiced by the MRC of Northern Tasmania)1998/99:Australian Croatian Social and Sporting ClubMRC of Northern TasmaniaMRCs/MSAsIn the federal electorate of Bass there is one MRC, the MRC of Northern Tasmania. It has been funded in 1997/98 and 1998/99.(b) My Department also funds the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS), which provides a national framework for improving humanitarian settlement services for Humanitarian Program entrants most in need.Under the IHSS worker grants, the MRC of Northern Tasmania was funded in 1997/98 and in 1998/99 to provide case management by two part-time workers based in Burnie and Devonport for migrants and humanitarian entrants and to provide ongoing case management for migrants and humanitarian entrants in the Northern Region of Tasmania.In 1998/99 the MRC of Northern Tasmania received a project grant under the IHSS to develop a model and provide a torture and trauma counselling worker in the north of the state in conjunction with the Department of Health and Family Services.(c) In August 1998 I launched the Living in Harmony (LiH) Initiative which includes a Community Grants program. The Initiative provides funding for community education projects that promote harmony and reduce racism. The following organisation, which is located in the federal electorate of Bass, has been funded under the LiH Initiative in 1998/99:Migrant Resource Centre (MRC) of Northern Tasmania to address intolerance and disharmony via a free-to-air satirical Community Services Announcement for the wider community shown on commercial TV, a video (including work kit) for schools and community groups and an Internet site.Funding was also provided to the Council for International Student Support (Tasmania), based in Hobart, to implement a number of initiatives in Launceston and Hobart. These will address issues of racial and social tension currently being experienced in these communities.(d) The Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) provides up to 510 hours of English language tuition to newly arrived migrants and refugees who do not have functional English. Under additional funding which commenced in 1997-98, refugees who are assessed as needing special assistance because of experience of torture and trauma are provided with up to 100 hours of additional English tuition under an AMEP preparatory program. AMEP funding in Tasmania is determined by the number of eligible migrants and refugees who enrol with the AMEP service provider, TAFE Tasmania. It is estimated that approximately 247 clients, 33 of whom were from the Bass electorate, accessed the program in 1998/99.(2) (a) Total CSS Scheme funding in 1997/98 was $4,360, comprising: Launceston Chinese Association—$1,500; Migrant Resource Centre (MRC) of Northern Tasmania—$2,136; Women Born Overseas Wynyard (Auspiced by the MRC of Northern Tasmania)—$724.Total CSS Scheme funding in 1998/99 was $1,000, comprising: Australian Croatian Social and Sporting Club—$500; MRC of Northern Tasmania—$500.MRCs/MSAs: MRC of Northern Tasmania received $193,592 in 1997/98 and $198,346 in 1998/99.(b) IHSS: MRC of Northern Tasmania: $70,660 in 1997/98 and $84,290 in 1998/99.(c) LiH funding to the MRC of Northern Tasmania was $30,000 in 1998/99. Funding provided in 1998/99 to the Council for International Student Support (Tasmania), to implement initiatives in Launceston and Hobart, was $34,850.(d) AMEP funding to Tasmania in 1997/98 totalled $520,000.AMEP funding to Tasmania in 1998/99 totalled around $569,000.(3) (a) Subject to the MRC of Northern Tasmania meeting the conditions contained in the Service Agreement, $201,975 has been allocated as MRC/MSA core funding.A decision regarding the distribution of CSS Scheme funding will not be made until late July/early August 1999.(b) A decision regarding the distribution of IHSS funding will also be made in late July/early August.(c) Subject to the MRC of Northern Tasmania meeting their agreed Milestones their LiH funding in 1999/2000 will be $24,000. Subject to the Council for International Student Support (Tasmania) meeting their agreed Milestones, for initiatives in Launceston and Hobart, their LiH funding in 1999/2000 will be $27,880.(d) AMEP funding to Tasmania in 1999/2000 is estimated to be around $523,000, based on projected client numbers.6993(Question No. 1116)11166993O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.6993Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The Minister for Sport and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1). Regional Tourism Program. Tasmanian Sporting Facilities Upgrade(2)Program1997-981998-99$$Regional Tourism Program-170,000Tasmanian Sporting Facilities Upgrade-5,000,000(3)Regional Tourism Program and Tasmanian Sporting Facilities Upgrade—Nil