1999-08-093914SENATE699501999-08-09 The Senate met at 2.00 p.m.Miscellaneous6995His Excellency the Hon. Sir William Patrick Deane, Companion of the Order of Australia, Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, entered the chamber and, taking his seat on the dais, said:Honourable senators:I am present to administer to senators elected to serve in the Senate from 1 July 1999, the oath or affirmation of allegiance, as required by section 42 of the Constitution.The Clerk produced and laid on the table the certificates of election of senators elected to serve in the Senate for the respective states from 1 July 1999. He also laid on the table a copy of the order of the Court of Disputed Returns of 2 July 1999 relating to the return of Senator Harris as a senator for the state of Queensland:New South Wales—Stephen Patrick Hutchins, William Daniel Heffernan, John Philip Faulkner, John William Tierney, Aden Derek Ridgeway, Michael George ForshawQueensland—Jan Elizabeth McLucas, Warwick Raymond Parer, Leonard William Harris, Joseph William Ludwig, Brett John Mason, John Woodley South Australia—Amanda Vanstone, Nick Bolkus, Nick Minchin, John Quirke, Meg Lees, Alan FergusonTasmania—Kerry O'Brien, Eric Abetz, Shayne Murphy, Brian Gibson, Kay Denman, Brian HarradineVictoria—Stephen Conroy, Judith Troeth, Kim Carr, Julian McGauran, Jacinta Collins, Tsebin TchenWestern Australia—Christopher Ellison, Peter Cook, Ian Campbell, Christopher Evans, Brian Greig, Susan KnowlesThe abovenamed senators made and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance.His Excellency the Governor-General having retired—Miscellaneous699514:18:006995Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Mr Clerk, I remind the Senate that the time has come when it is necessary for the Senate to choose one of its members to be President. I propose to the Senate for its President, Senator Reid, and I move:That Senator Reid take the chair of the Senate as President.10001CLERKThe Clerk—Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, in accordance with the standing orders Senator Reid is elected President and will take the chair. Senator Reid having been conducted to the dais—6996The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I thank the Senate for the honour bestowed upon me. I am very conscious of the role of this chamber and the difficulties that from time to time we face being a chamber where no group has a majority. I think, on balance, it works together extremely well. I have enjoyed the three years that I have been the Presiding Officer of this chamber. I look forward to serving again and I thank you for electing me.14:20:006996Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, on behalf of government senators, I congratulate you on your election as President. You have clearly received a vote of confidence from all senators today. I think that is a demonstration of the fact that, in the eyes of all senators, during your first term you served this institution well with both dignity and professionalism.Madam President, I think we all recognise that chairing the Senate is becoming a more challenging task, perhaps a reflection of this chamber becoming more of a house of government than was its design. Nevertheless, with the numbers as they are, the task of holding your office and managing the chamber is something of a challenge. There is on occasions in those circumstances advice given to you by honourable senators as to how to manage the Senate in these somewhat difficult circumstances. I suggest that perhaps if all honourable senators were to take this occasion to commit themselves to respect the office of the President then your task would be easier and then we would all be contributing to ensuring that the chamber retains, in the eyes of the Australian community, the high standing that it has deserved over a long period of time. Madam President, as I said, we congratulate you on being re-elected. We wish you well in your second term.14:21:006996Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, on behalf of opposition senators, I congratulate you on your election to this high office. It is a very important office in the Australian parliament. As you have correctly said, it is not always easy. We do all sit in a chamber where no one party has a majority on the floor of the chamber and that of course means that those who are responsible for presiding here have a particularly difficult and onerous task. As far as the opposition is concerned—and I am sure this is a view shared by all senators—we acknowledge that you undertake that task and try to ensure that you preside with impartiality, with fairness, with even-handedness. It is our expectation that you will continue in that regard in the next term and, Madam President, you will do so with the support and the cooperation of Labor senators. We wish you well for the three years ahead.14:23:006996Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Democrats to congratulate you and to say on behalf of everyone that we have experienced your even-handedness and indeed we look forward to working with you as President of this chamber for the next three years. We all pledge our support and cooperation as we all work to uphold standing orders to the best of our ability at times which can become a touch difficult. But we do congratulate you on the excellent job that you have done over the previous three years. I think the fact that you have stood unopposed is a good indication of your very high standing with all of us in this chamber. We wish you well and, on behalf of the Democrats, I pledge our cooperation and support to get those standing orders adhered to.14:23:006996Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Congratulations, Madam President, on your unopposed election. I believe that shows you do have the support of the whole Senate and you should be very pleased that you have been unanimously elected. Your rulings over the last three years have been fair and impartial as you strive to keep control, as you said, in a house that does not have a majority, and you have done it skilfully and well. On behalf of National Party senators, I congratulate you and we are very happy that you have been elected unopposed.14:24:006997Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, congratulations. You have been an excellent and impressive President. I cannot guarantee that in the heat of debate while remembering the reasons that sometimes fire the passion I will always abide by the rules, but I am glad to know that you will be there to remind me, if necessary, and other senators. You do an excellent job. Congratulations.14:25:006997Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, congratulations on being re-elected unanimously to that important office. Over the last 24 years that I have been serving in this place there have been a few Presidents come and go. You are up there amongst the best of them. We are all very conscious of the fact that being elected to this chamber imposes a great deal of responsibility on us as well as on you. We need to be absolutely sure in the period ahead particularly that we do hold the executive government accountable to the elected representatives of the people.You belong to the party that happens to be in government. But you have always, as I have seen, exercised your responsibilities in a very impartial and apolitical manner. For that, you are indeed to be congratulated. We, on our part, and you, most of all, need to be aware of the fact that, as has been referred to by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, this place has acted over the past few years and will act in the next few years in a manner that has changed the course of quite a large number of pieces of legislation. In those circumstances, I believe it is vital for your impartiality and for your balance to be at the forefront of the procedures in this chamber. Congratulations and I wish you well.14:27:006997Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, on behalf of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the role of President. I look forward to working with you and my honourable colleagues in this chamber in a manner that is dignified and diligent. I congratulate you and thank you.6997The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I thank the senators who have spoken on behalf of their parties and groups this afternoon. I do reiterate that I am very honoured to be in this position. I regard it as essential that I deal with all 75 of my colleagues absolutely equally and I certainly hope I have done that and will continue to do so. I think it is important for our parliamentary democracy that the Senate does what it does as efficiently as possible and that it also continues to do the things that it does well and has done well, such as the Parliamentary Education Program.Over 300,000 students have visited Parliament House in the last three years and two-thirds of them have participated in the Parliamentary Education Program. It is a program that other parliaments look at and some are imitating and putting in place as they recognise the importance of young people understanding how it works. The Senate has continued with the Occasional Lecture Series, and there have been some 30 since I was elected to office in August 1996. That will continue. I believe that too is an important program.It is also of course through the work of the committees that the public, to a very great extent, has an opportunity to interact with the parliament. I know it is arduous for committees to travel as they have to, but I do believe that it is important that senators make themselves available, as they do, to travel on committees to enable constituents in far flung places to be able to interact with the Senate and the work that it does. The Senate has in this period introduced a web site giving access to all proceedings of the Senate and particularly the committees and has also placed the Australasian Federal Convention debates on the web site so an even greater number of people are able to be involved.I particularly want to welcome the seven new senators who have been sworn in today. I trust that they will enjoy the opportunity that they have been given to serve their electorates and to listen to those who have elected them and speak in this place on their behalf. To the clerks at the table and the attendants in the building, we are indebted to you for the role that you play in making sure that the Senate functions and of course to all the other Senate staff, some of whom we rarely see but all of whom are important to make sure that we function as we should.I want to refer just briefly, if I may, to the loss we suffered earlier in the previous term when one of our number died. Senator John Panizza was in Cairns on committee work when his untimely death occurred. I am not the only one amongst us who recalls him with affection and has missed him and was very sorry about what occurred.Last but by no means least, I want to thank Senator Sue West for the role she has played as Deputy President and Chairman of Committees. There has not been an occasion in the last three years when she has not been willing to fill in for me or to do something that I wanted her to do, and the cooperation that has existed I think has become a friendship between us. I thank you, Sue, for the role that you have played.Sitting suspended from 2.32 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair, and read prayers.Miscellaneous699810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have to report that, accompanied by honourable senators, this afternoon I presented myself to the Governor-General as the choice of the Senate as President. The Governor-General congratulated me upon my election and presented me with a commission to administer to senators the oath or affirmation of allegiance.Commission laid on the table and read by the Clerk.Miscellaneous699815:32:006998Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I remind the Senate that it should now choose one of its members to be Deputy President and Chairman of Committees.03:32:006998Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I propose to the Senate for its Deputy President and Chairman of Committees Senator West. I move:That Senator West be appointed Deputy President and Chairman of Committees.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I declare Senator West elected Deputy President and Chairman of Committees in accordance with the standing orders.15:32:006998West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Thank you, Madam President. It is with great pride that I rise today to say thank you to my colleagues for the honour of being elected to this position unopposed. I value the honour that you have given me. I look forward to working with every one of you. As Senator Brown said earlier, I know there are times when the emotions take over and we have to stop and think about things and draw breath and behave, but I do look forward to the cut and thrust of the future debates in this place. I look forward to working with everybody here, and particularly you, Madam President. I thank you for your kind words earlier today and I look forward to continuing our friendship and our working relationship together. Thank you.15:33:006998Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—On behalf of government senators, I congratulate Senator West on her election unopposed. We on this side of the chamber believe that she has done a good job as Deputy President and has well deserved our support today, and thus we have been pleased to support her and wish her well during this ensuing term.15:33:006998Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition I say to Senator Sue West that we are also delighted that she has received the unanimous endorsement of the Senate as Deputy President and Chairman of Committees. We believe that she has been a very competent, hardworking and even-handed Chairman of Committees. The fact that she has been re-elected today unanimously by this chamber is a demonstration of her capacity.It is the case, as you would be only too well aware, Madam President, that in this chamber there are often very complex committee stage debates. I believe that in the time she has been Chairman of Committees Senator West has demonstrated a great capacity to handle those complex debates with competence and with the necessary good humour that is required from time to time. We certainly welcome your reappointment, Sue. On behalf of opposition senators, I wish you well for the three years ahead.15:35:006999Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise to congratulate Senator West on behalf of the Democrats. We are very pleased to support your nomination and election to this position. The Senate's committee system has become a very important part of what we do. Your support of that system and the various chairs and deputy chairs is, I would imagine, at times quite an arduous role but a very important one. We thank you for your contribution to date. We look forward to working with you, particularly in your role as Chairman of Committees.15:35:006999Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I too congratulate the newly elected Deputy President, Senator Sue West. Both you, Madam President, and the Deputy President make an excellent team which administers the business of the Senate in a fair and bipartisan way. The fact that you have both been re-elected unanimously reflects the great confidence the Senate has had in both of you previously as President and Deputy President. Sue, I wish you all the best for the next three years.15:36:006999Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I too would like to congratulate Senator West on being elected. I think it is a great thing for this chamber to have a President from the governing party and a Deputy President from the opposition. It shows maturity on the part of the chamber, particularly on the part of the government party at this particular time. They have put the interests of the chamber ahead of their self- interests. I think that should be commended. None of us have had very much regard to affirmative action when choosing a President and Deputy President; it has all been done on merit. I look forward to again working with Senator West, but I hope not for the duration of those longstanding committee stage debates like native title. Senator West sat through much of that and guided us through much of that. I look forward to working with her in this coming period.15:38:006999Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I congratulate Senator West on her election to this position. It is particularly pleasant that it did not even require the vote this time and that unanimity is the accolade for a job well done over the last three years. I look forward to working in the chamber. I am particularly pleased that the two presiding officers are women. I do not know that that applies in many other parliamentary chambers around the world. It is an excellent thing on the road to a greater parity of numbers here on the benches, which I think will be a good thing for this country in the future. I wish Senator West well and look forward to working with her over the coming three years.15:38:006999Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to congratulate Senator Sue West on her election to the position of Deputy President and Chairman of Committees. I look forward to working with her and with you, Madam President, in both this chamber and in the committees to represent the people of Queensland. I appreciate the courtesies that will be afforded to me in my initial period and again congratulate the senator.15:39:006999West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I thank everybody for the kind words that they have uttered on behalf of their parties. I look forward to working with you. I recognise that it is a great honour. I am sure we will have fun and troubled times ahead and all sorts of variety. It will be great to be able to work with Madam President and work for the betterment of the Senate.Ministerial Arrangements699915:39:006999Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I seek leave to interrupt the program at this stage to table, for the information of honourable senators, an updated list of the full ministry reflecting the changes announced by the Prime Minister on 5 July 1999.Leave granted.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I also seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The list read as follows—SECOND HOWARD MINISTRY9 August 1999TITLEMINISTEROTHER CHAMBER Prime Minister The Hon John Howard, MPSenator the Hon Robert HillMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Senator the Hon John HerronThe Hon Philip Ruddock, MPMinister Assisting the Prime MinisterThe Hon Wilson Tuckey, MPParliamentary Secretary to CabinetSenator the Hon Bill Heffernan Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Deputy Prime Minister)* The Hon John Anderson, MPSenator the Hon Ian MacdonaldMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local GovernmentSenator the Hon Ian MacdonaldThe Hon John Anderson, MPParliamentary Secretary*Senator the Hon Ron Boswell* Treasurer The Hon Peter Costello, MPSenator the Hon Rod KempAssistant TreasurerSenator the Hon Rod KempThe Hon Peter Costello, MPMinister for Financial Services and RegulationThe Hon Joe Hockey, MPSenator the Hon Rod Kemp Minister for Trade The Hon Mark Vaile, MP *Senator the Hon Robert Hill Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon Alexander Downer, MPSenator the Hon Robert HillParliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs)The Hon Kathy Sullivan, MP Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator the Hon Robert HillThe Hon Warren Truss, MP*Parliamentary SecretaryThe Hon Sharman Stone, MP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator the Hon Richard AlstonThe Hon Peter McGauran, MPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation (Deputy Leader of the House)The Hon Peter McGauran, MPSenator the Hon Richard Alston Parliamentary Secretary (Manager of Government Business in the Senate)Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (Leader of the House) The Hon Peter Reith, MPSenator the Hon Richard AlstonMinister for Employment ServicesThe Hon Tony Abbott, MPSenator the Hon Richard Alston Minister for the Family and Community Services Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women Senator the Hon Jocelyn NewmanThe Hon Larry Anthony, MP*Minister for Community ServicesThe Hon Larry Anthony, MP*Senator the Hon Jocelyn Newman Minister for Defence The Hon John Moore, MPSenator the Hon Jocelyn NewmanMinister Assisting the Minister for DefenceThe Hon Bruce Scott, MPMinister for Veterans' AffairsThe Hon Bruce Scott, MPSenator the Hon Jocelyn NewmanParliamentary SecretarySenator the Hon Eric Abetz Minister for Health and Aged Care The Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge, MPSenator the Hon John HerronMinister for Aged CareThe Hon Bronwyn Bishop, MPSenator the Hon John HerronParliamentary SecretarySenator the Hon Grant Tambling Minister for Finance and Administration The Hon John Fahey, MPSenator the Hon Chris EllisonSpecial Minister of StateSenator the Hon Chris EllisonThe Hon John Fahey, MPParliamentary SecretaryThe Hon Peter Slipper, MP Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Vice-President of the Executive Council) Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service The Hon Dr David Kemp, MPSenator the Hon Chris EllisonParliamentary SecretaryThe Hon Trish Worth, MP Minister for Industry, Science and Resources Senator the Hon Nick MinchinThe Hon John Moore, MP Minister for Sport and Tourism Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 GamesThe Hon Jackie Kelly, MPSenator the Hon Nick MinchinParliamentary SecretaryThe Hon Warren Entsch, MP Attorney-General The Hon Daryl Williams, AM QC MPSenator the Hon Amanda VanstoneMinister for Justice and CustomsSenator the Hon Amanda VanstoneThe Hon Daryl Williams, AM QC MP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs The Hon Philip Ruddock, MPSenator the Hon Amanda VanstoneMinister Assisting the Prime Minister for ReconciliationSenator the Hon John HerronParliamentary SecretarySenator the Hon Kay Patterson Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry The Hon Warren Truss, MP *Senator the Hon Richard AlstonMinister for Forestry and ConservationThe Hon Wilson Tuckey, MPSenator the Hon Robert HillParliamentary SecretarySenator the Hon Judith TroethEach box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type . As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. Except for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the title of each department reflects that of the portfolio minister. There is also a Department of Veterans Affairs in the Defence portfolio.Condolences700270027002The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On behalf of all senators, I express our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those young Australians who were killed and to those who were injured at Interlaken on 27 July 1999. I offer condolences to the families and friends of those citizens of Switzerland, New Zealand, South Africa and Britain who also lost their lives in this tragedy. I also wish to commend the efforts of the rescuers and support services attending the scene and extend thanks to the Swiss authorities who came to the assistance of the survivors, friends and families.A number of senators who have just been presented to the Governor-General commented to him on his presence at the service at Interlaken. I include our thanks to him for representing this country with the distinction with which he did on that sad occasion. I invite honourable senators to stand and observe a minute's silence in memory of those who died and in sympathy with their loved ones and friends whom we join in mourning.Honourable senators having stood in their places—10000The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I thank the Senate.700210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 17 July 1999 of the Hon. Kevin Eugene Newman AO, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Bass from 1975 to 1984, and at various times in that period Minister for Repatriation, Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Minister for National Development, Minister for Productivity, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence.15:43:007002Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Saturday, 17 July 1999, of the Honourable Kevin Eugene Newman, Lt Col (Rtd), AO, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Bass in the State of Tasmania from 1975 to 1984, Minister for Administrative Services from 1980 to 1983, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence from 1980 to 1982, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs and Minister for Productivity from 1979 to 1980, Minister for National Development from 1977 to 1979, Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development from 1976 to 1977, and Minister for Repatriation from 1975 to 1976, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Kevin Newman was born on 10 October 1933 in Sydney, New South Wales. He was educated at Scots College and entered the Royal Military College, Duntroon in 1952. He had a distinguished military career. Some of the highlights included service in Malaya from 1956 to 1957 as an infantry platoon commander during the Malayan Emergency and in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968 with the Second Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He also served as an exchange instructor with the British Army's School of Infantry.Kevin Newman won the seat of Bass in Tasmania at a by-election in 1975, a result which was generally credited as contributing in a major way to the change of government that occurred at the general election later that year when he, of course, won the seat again. In fact, he held the seat for some nine years before resigning undefeated in 1984. As I indicated a moment ago, he served as a minister in a number of different portfolios between 1975 and 1983, thus through the whole of the period of the Fraser government.He had many interests and made a special contribution in so many areas of public life, but I want to mention just two. The first was his long interest in heritage matters, both during his parliamentary service and after. As I said, he was Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development when the Australian Heritage Commission was established in 1976. He had been Chairman of the Governing Council of Old Parliament House since 1998, a member of the Stockman's Hall of Fame board since 1985, Chairman of the Australian Council of National Trusts and President of the National Trust of Tasmania from 1988 to 1991.The other field I wanted to mention was his contribution to the promotion of community health. He was Chairman of the Tasmanian Committee of Nurse Education from 1986 until 1989. He was instrumental in establishing the Menzies Centre for Population Health Research at the University of Tasmania, and its chairman from 1987 to 1990. He was Chairman of the Launceston Public Hospital Board from 1985 until 1989.Madam President, Kevin Newman was named in the 1994 Queen's Birthday Honours list and appointed an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia for service to the community, particularly through the provision of health care services, the preserva tion of cultural heritage and services to the Australian Parliament.His was a lifelong commitment to community service in his own right, but also of course after his retirement, in support of our colleague Jocelyn. The Newman family continued to serve through the parliament when Jocelyn was elected to the Senate and since she has served as a minister in the Howard government. His support of Jocelyn in her work, particularly as his health deteriorated, is something which we all admired. They made a formidable political partnership, Madam President, both in Tasmania and in the affairs of the nation.On behalf of government senators, I extend to Jocelyn and their children, Campbell and Kate, and their families our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.15:50:007003Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I wish to associate the opposition with this condolence motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the death of the Hon. Kevin Newman, who was a former minister in the Fraser government.There is no doubt that Kevin Newman contributed much to Australian society, first serving his country as a soldier, then, of course, as a parliamentarian and federal minister and then in public service. He had a distinguished career in the military, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He graduated from Duntroon in 1954. He was a platoon commander in the Third Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment during the Malayan Emergency in 1956 and then served as an operations officer in the Second Battalion in Vietnam in 1967.Of course, he resigned his commission to enter the political arena in 1975. He did so at the Bass by-election which he won for the Liberal Party. There is no doubt that it was one of the most significant by-elections in Australian political history. That would be acknowledged by people on all sides of Australian politics. Soon after he won that cathartic by-election in 1975, there was a change of government and he quickly assumed ministerial responsibility. He held numerous portfolios throughout his ministerial career as Minister for Repatriation, Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development, Minister for National Development, Minister for Productivity and Minister for Administrative Services.Those of us in the parliament who have an interest particularly in environmental protection would acknowledge the very significant efforts that were made during his stewardship of the environment portfolio in saving Fraser Island from sand mining. That ought to be placed on record in this chamber today. After that distinguished ministerial career, he resigned from parliament in 1984 due to ill health. As Senator Hill has indicated, it was not long after that that his wife, Jocelyn, entered the Senate and Tasmanians were represented by another Newman in the Commonwealth parliament.I want to say this: Kevin Newman's death does have particular significance for senators, because his wife is a serving senator and minister in the Howard government. He is a person who was seen around this building a lot, in support of Senator Newman as she undertook her ministerial responsibilities and duties. I am sure that, because of the fact that Kevin Newman was married to a serving senator in this chamber, his death has touched senators very deeply.The opposition would acknowledge that Kevin Newman served the people of Tasmania and of Australia with distinction. We particularly want to say to Jocelyn Newman that she has the sincere and deepest sympathy of the opposition in this difficult time. We also offer our sincere condolences to other members of Jocelyn's family and to Kevin Newman's friends.15:54:007004Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am indebted to Senators Lees, Brown, Harradine and Boswell for allowing me the opportunity to say a few words on this occasion. Kevin Newman was someone that I had known for more than 20 years. In all that time he always struck me—and, I am sure, many others—as someone who represented the highest ideals of commitment to public service. His CV is a very impressive one. I suppose the stand-out is that in a political career that spanned only about nine years, for 8½ of those years he was a minister. That is a very hard thing to beat and in many ways it tells you a couple of things about judgment: you have got to know when to get in and when to get out. Given that he had already had a very distinguished military career, to move on in the way that he did and hold some very high offices over that long period is ample testimony to his capacity.But CVs do not ever really tell the full story. Certainly, they do not indicate the very human qualities that Kevin Newman possessed. He always struck me as a person of very high principle. We all know that he suffered from a degenerative illness that finally cost him his life. During all of that period when it was increasingly difficult for him to breathe— and indeed, at times, to move—he displayed the highest stoicism and bravery. I am sure that his military career stood him in good stead in that regard. It is very easy, I am sure, for even those who think they are of the strongest character to feel sorry for themselves on occasions, but we never saw that with Kevin. I an sure he was forever grateful for the support of Jocelyn; they were a wonderful team.I also knew, having appointed him as chairman of the governing council of Old Parliament House and discussing with him such things as the Stockman's Hall of Fame on a number of occasions, of his long and abiding interest in heritage issues. He was a very good chairman. He consulted widely, had the noblest of instincts and very much understood what was important. He was at all times committed to ensuring that we had bipartisan support on that council, that people understood the significance of the building and that we really did leave something for those coming after us.I simply want to say that most people who go through this parliament can claim that they have achieved something, but Kevin Newman will live long in all our memories as someone who really did bring a new, very high dimension in terms of personal qualities. I am sure that his family and friends will miss him for a very long time. I extend my special sympa thies to Jocelyn, the children and the wider family.15:57:007005Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—I rise to associate the Democrats with the motion moved by Senator Hill. We were all very sorry to hear of the death of the former minister and member for Bass, the Hon. Kevin Eugene Newman AO. He certainly was a very strong and very well-known advocate for Tasmania. The Hon. Kevin Newman's distinguished record, both before he entered politics in 1975 and also while serving in the other place, is also very well known and has again been detailed here this afternoon. In particular, he will be remembered for his work on the environment—as has already been mentioned—on some of the key issues in his time as a minister in the Fraser government.He went on, yet again, after leaving politics, to a third life, if you like, and did very distinguished work in the community, for which he was formally recognised. We also remember his work for community health and particularly for the National Trust and the environment generally. I want to extend the sympathy of the Democrats to his wife, Senator Jocelyn Newman, and to say to her now that our thoughts are with her at this very difficult time and are also with the family and with Kevin Newman's friends.15:59:007005Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I wish to associate the National Party with the condolence motion, moved by Senator Hill for the government, for the Hon. Kevin Newman AO, who passed away suddenly in July after a long battle with illness. Kevin was known to many of us in this chamber, and I wish to express our deepest sympathy to his wife, Senator Newman, and to the family.Kevin Newman was a leader before reaching federal parliament. He had a distinguished career in the military, reaching the rank of lieutenant colonel. He graduated from the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1954 and was a platoon commander during the Malayan Emergency in 1956. He then served as an operations officer in South Vietnam. In 1967 he resigned from the military to pursue a future in politics. Kevin's political life began with the now famous by-election in Bass, where he won the seat with a swing of over 17 per cent. This victory was critical for the Liberal Party and began a series of events culminating in the election of the Fraser government.After the election win, he was appointed as a minister and, over the next eight years, held the portfolios of Repatriation; Environment, Housing and Community Development; National Development; Productivity; and Administrative Services. Kevin Newman will be remembered for his strength of command both during military operations and as a minister of the Crown. In the words of my former leader Tim Fischer, Kevin was a soldier's soldier who enjoyed the company of all ranks. He pushed the envelope to keep moving the battalion forward and to build up unit spirit. He applied the same philosophy of thinking and actions in the portfolios he managed.Due to ill health, Kevin Newman retired from parliament in 1984. After this, he continued to pursue public service and was appointed president of the National Trust of Tasmania and chairman of the National Council of National Trusts. He was a member of the board of the Menzies Foundation and a director of the Stockman's Hall of Fame. He was also the chairman of the council for Old Parliament House. Kevin Newman received the Order of Australia in 1994 after a lifetime of service.I extend my sympathy to his wife, Senator Newman, his children, Campbell and Kate, his grandchildren, family members and friends, and offer them the condolences of the National Party. Senator Newman was fortunate to have such a terrific supporter in Kevin.It is rare to have a husband and wife team where both have played a significant role in public life, each in their own way. We will miss seeing Kevin's face in the corridors. We will miss learning of his involvement in various activities, always related to some kind of public service. It is fashionable for some to downgrade people who try to make their mark in politics, but it is moments like this condolence motion today when we can renew our faith in the importance of a life called to public service. We recognise the sacrifices and triumphs and how important it is to have someone to share them with. Our sincere sympathies are with Jocelyn on the loss of her partner and a memorable Australian.16:01:007006Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I too would like to associate myself with this condolence motion. It was a great privilege for me to be present at the service for Kevin Newman at the chapel of the Royal Military College, Duntroon. It was a very fitting farewell. Indeed, the eulogies were quite outstanding, I thought, and must have been of considerable comfort to Jocelyn and to her family.Kevin I knew as a fellow Tasmanian as well as a minister for some years. Kevin was, there is no doubt about it, a battler for Bass. He continued talking about Bass, and certainly talked about it within the spheres of government and power up here in Canberra, as witnessed in some of the practical results that flowed to the division of Bass. It has been mentioned that for eight of his nine years he was a minister, but it is interesting to note that he actually stood four times—he had to face four elections in those nine years. Such was life in those days. It is not terrifically well known by people nowadays, but he was a senior military officer—a lieutenant colonel—at the age of 41. It is not too often that people get to be lieutenant colonel at the age of 41. He had shown a great deal of spirit, administrative capabilities and, of course, bravery.There are a lot of things that could be said about Kevin on both a personal and an official basis. I, too, would like to join with my colleagues in expressing sincere sympathy to Jocelyn and to her family on the death of her husband and their father.16:04:007006Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I, too, would like to associate myself with this condolence motion. In the passing of Kevin Newman, Tasmania and Australia have lost a very fine citizen.I am one of those who seem to have made a career in finding dispute with ministers for the environment, and the former minister Kevin Newman was no exception. But, as has already been mentioned by Senator Alston, a very important part of his success story is the protection of Fraser Island—one of the great moments in environmental history which occurred under the Fraser government during the time Kevin Newman was Minister for the environment.I would add that Kevin Newman was somebody with the noblest instincts. He did not bear grudges, and he was an affable, accommodating, genuine human being. I found that in my dealings with him right down the line. I do not know whether it was the inspiration of Launceston's remarkable architectural heritage that made the difference, but he was a fighter for Australia's heritage; a person who has contributed greatly to the wellbeing of the heritage of this country.I would like to join other members in extending deepest sympathy to Senator Newman and her family at this time.16:05:007006Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I wish to be associated with this condolence motion. For many years Kevin and I shared adjoining offices.Kevin Newman will be fondly remembered by many residents of Tasmania, particularly the electorate of Bass, as a leader and as a high achiever who represented his people very strongly in the federal parliament. Kevin brought a new and a very practical dimension to federal-state financial relations, especially in the delivery of massive financial special payments to Tasmania.His landslide success in the Bass by-election in June 1975 lit a spark which quickly led to a revival of Liberal Party prospects nationwide and the subsequent election success of the coalition government later that year. Tasmanians elected Liberals to all five seats in the December 1975 federal election.As a member of parliament, Kevin Newman was accessible and respected, and regarded as an energetic and warm human being. He also had a distinguished life in community service which began with his military career.Kevin Newman played an important role during his time in parliament not only as a hardworking and practical minister but also as the major voice for Tasmania in the Fraser government. Of course, we see his loving and so capable wife Jocelyn as the major voice for Tasmania in this very effective Howard government. What a wonderful partnership both Kevin and Jocelyn have been.Kevin Newman was an energetic and determined advocate of Tasmanian causes, and after his retirement from parliamentary life he continued his strong contribution to community affairs, notably through his leadership role in the National Trust at both state and federal levels. Tasmanians have indeed lost an exceptionally good citizen. Kevin's advice and practical contribution to all will be sadly missed. My sincere sympathy is extended to Jocelyn, his daughter Kate, his son Campbell, his sister, his brother-in-law and also their families.16:08:007007Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I, too, as a Tasmanian senator, wish to be associated with this condolence motion. Senator Abetz, who unfortunately has had to attend another meeting, would also like his name to be associated with the motion.Those of us who were privileged to be at the memorial service held for Kevin on Thursday, 22 July, could not have been impressed more, not only by the number of people who were there but by the eulogies that were given by former and current serving members of the Defence Force. They spoke about just what sort of person Kevin Newman was. They went right back to when he was serving as a cadet officer and spoke about his military career. There were many enlightening anecdotes about some of his achievements and about some of the pranks that one would expect from young officers and young cadets. Without going through all of his achievements, I think it is important for us to remember that it was mentioned at the service that Jocelyn, his wife, described their relationship as `more than a love affair, but a great friendship'. This was mentioned in Partners, a book about Australian couples who have been together for a long time. I believe the Newmans were together since 1 July 1961.My major association with Kevin concerned his management of all of the campaigns that I have been involved in. I have been re-elected successfully every time, and I think Kevin's success rate as the director of the Senate campaigns in Tasmania is second to none. Those of us who worked with Kevin—including Senator Watson and me—know that he would tell us in no uncertain terms what he thought we should be doing. His zest to get on and win inspired us all. He suggested that we should hire a bus to do our cam paigning. Without going into any detail, I can assure you that driving a bus with Jocelyn, Shirley Walters and Brian Archer was something that was an experience to be involved in. I was the driver, and half the time I was being advised by everybody which turn we should be taking. Nevertheless, we got around, we won the campaign and we were re-elected. Kevin's support and advice to the Tasmanian Liberal Party, to the federal Liberal members and senators, was always appreciated and very well regarded because his advice was always the best.A lot of us probably do not realise how well Kevin was known by the man in the street, because of his involvement at all levels. Particularly in Launceston he tenaciously followed through all of his promises. He was involved in very great projects in Tasmania, such as the Australian Maritime College, the Launceston General Hospital and the Albert Hall convention centre. And, of course, he was one of the original supporters of freight equalisation.Kevin was a very strong family man and supported Jocelyn, as we all know, very strongly, particularly after she became a very senior federal minister for Tasmania. I would like to express my condolences publicly to Jocelyn and her family and, as I said before, involve Senator Abetz in those remarks, because he unfortunately could not be here.16:12:007007Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—I also, as a Tasmanian Liberal senator, wish to be associated with this condolence motion for Kevin Newman. As my colleague Senator Calvert just said, Kevin managed our Senate campaigns going back a long time. Kevin was the manager of the two campaigns that I have been involved in—in 1993 and just last year in 1998. He made a great contribution to the party, to Senator Eric Abetz and me, and to other candidates. He stayed cool, calm and collected throughout the election campaigns and planned them well. Basically, when panic was going on here and there—which happens a fair bit during election campaigns, as we all know—Kevin was there, cool, calm and collected, making sure that things were done correctly; `Settle down. This is what you've got to do,' et cetera. Through that process, of course, my wife and I became good friends with the Newmans.One little thing I should mention—which nobody else has done—is that Kevin, when national development minister, was a great proponent of a cable across Bass Strait to link the Tasmanian electricity system to the mainland system. This was well before it was even mentioned in the public arena. I might add that that project is underway right now, and not before time. It should have been done a long time ago. Kevin pushed that strongly in the early days—which, again, is not well known in Tasmania. Kevin showed great foresight, and it would have been a magnificent thing if it had been done when he had suggested it. He was a great fellow. We will miss him, and our condolences are with Jocelyn and his family.16:15:007008Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—In joining in this condolence motion may I say that I well remember 28 June 1975, the date of the Bass by-election, because on that same weekend there was a meeting of the federal Young Liberal policy committee in Melbourne, and I was among seven or eight Young Liberals gathered at that meeting. I think our attention was fixed more on what was happening across Bass Strait in Launceston on that afternoon of the by-election rather than on the matters of policy that were confronting us. There was certainly a terrific celebration among that group on that Saturday evening when the results came in and we discovered there had been an 18 per cent swing to Kevin Newman as the Liberal candidate to secure victory for him in that by-election. Of course, that meant he became the vanguard of the tremendous 1975 election win for the Liberal and National parties, and their return to government under Prime Minister Fraser. He was the vanguard of those who became known as the oncers: those of us who were elected to this parliament for the first time in 1975 were described as thus by the then Labor opposition—I suppose, in their hoping scorn—but in fact most of us turned out to be at least thricers and survived through the period of service that the Fraser government gave to Australia.Significantly, Kevin Newman survived beyond 1983 until his voluntary retirement in 1984. It is worth reflecting that, prior to his election, Bass had been a relatively safe Labor seat and certainly since his retirement in 1984 it has been a marginal seat which has seesawed backwards and forwards between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. Yet Kevin Newman held that seat for the whole of his period in parliament, without loss, and retired voluntarily. I believe that in itself reflects the positive attitude that the electorate of Bass had towards Kevin Newman, the respect they had for him and for the hard work that he undertook on behalf of his Bass constituents.My closest association with Kevin Newman was during his period as Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development between July 1976 and December 1977 when, as minister for that portfolio, he initiated the Fraser government's policy to take an active involvement in youth affairs, with the establishment of the Office of Youth Affairs within his department. This was a tremendous initiative on the part of the government, and on the part of Kevin as the responsible minister, because it was the first time that a federal government had taken an active interest in youth matters. It was therefore an important initiative by Kevin Newman, as minister, and something for which he is due great credit.He appointed me to an advisory committee to work with him in relation to youth affairs policy. During the period he held that portfolio, I was very much aware of Kevin's unbridled enthusiasm not only for life but for his political responsibilities, and that was certainly reflected in his approach to youth affairs and the policies that he initiated in that area and in his work with that advisory committee.After Kevin's retirement, and my return to the parliament in this place, I continued my association with him on his periodic visits to Canberra, as has already been mentioned, in his capacity as our colleague Senator Jocelyn Newman's spouse. I always regarded highly the opportunity to catch up with Kevin during those visits. Perhaps even more import antly than those visits were his regular attendances at the oncers dinner—the reunion dinners that have been held every year for those of us who were elected in 1975—as a `75er, albeit, as an early `75er because, as I said, he was elected in that June by-election rather than the December election.He was always enthusiastically involved in those dinners and it was of course on those occasions that Senator Newman attended as his spouse, as Kevin attended those dinners in his own right. He certainly enjoyed those occasions and I am sure he will be missed by those of us `75ers who continue to gather each year to celebrate at those dinners. His company will be missed and his enthusiastic involvement in those dinners will certainly be missed. I wish to extend my sympathy to Jocelyn, and to his children and other members of the family.16:19:007009Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I wish to contribute briefly to this condolence motion for Kevin Newman. Kevin is someone I too will always remember because I was a Young Liberal in 1975 when this fellow called Kevin Newman won the seat of Bass in Tasmania. It was a memorable time for young people, particularly of the Liberal persuasion, because he became the masthead for a Liberal government and a Liberal change. Even though none of us knew Kevin at that stage he was somehow etched in our memories for ever more. Once I got to know Kevin—throughout my time in the Liberal Party and in those early days when I was involved at national conferences and so forth—I learned very quickly that he was someone who was absolutely and utterly respected as a professional, intelligent and kind person. He was a member of parliament who was able to keep and exhibit all of those qualities, without compromise.One of the wonderful things was that he continued to contribute through his subsequent community activities, which Senator Hill mentioned in his speech earlier today. Apart from being a loving and deeply caring family man, who was so incredibly proud of his wife, Jocelyn, and her achievements, and of course their children, he was also someone who cared about others. When Kevin asked you how you were, or what you had been doing and what you planned to do, he actually meant what he asked. To me, he was one of those rare persons who listened to and were interested in your response. He did not ask the question and then not listen and walk away. It is something I will always remember him for with great affection. To Jocelyn, Kate and Campbell, and their families, I extend to you my heartfelt sympathies at the passing of a person I call a real officer and a gentleman.16:22:007009Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I also seek to associate myself with the comments that have been made this afternoon about Kevin Eugene Newman. He is fondly remembered by all Tasmanians. His life was an example to us all. It was a life of public service: service to the defence of his nation and service to the people of Bass and Tasmania as an elected member of the parliament and as a minister in the Fraser government. All of us here dedicate ourselves to public service. It would be fair to say that Kevin Newman did that, but even more so. He dedicated the first part of his life to military service, which is a calling potentially a lot greater than the calling of those of us who serve in the public arena. He was willing through his calling to place his own safety at risk for the defence of the nation, and that is a calling and commitment that should never be underestimated.After having completed a very distinguished military career, he continued to devote himself to public service through the parliament. He was prepared to make a commitment to Australia even after his distinguished military and parliamentary career. His support to the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party of Australia was very much appreciated by me in my role as a former state president and as a Senate candidate at the last election. We were ably managed by Kevin Newman; he was our campaign manager. Throughout the numerous years that I have known Kevin, he struck me as being intelligent, forthright and a very matter-of-fact type of man. He would be very quick to tell you if he thought you had done something wrong. It was over in a minute or two, but it was just as forthright. He would also go out of his way to tell you if he thought you had done something well.He was very matter-of-fact, straight to the point and strategic, but he was also a man who was very generous in spirit. There is one image that I have of Kevin Newman and that is his big smile and twinkling eyes. Those of us who were at the service at Duntroon saw that those characteristics have been inherited by his son, Campbell, who was so gracious as to smile and who showed the same twinkling eyes as we were passing on our condolences. The Newman duo—Kevin and Jocelyn—were a dynamic duo in Tasmania. They have made a fantastic contribution to Tasmania. Indeed, it was Kevin Newman's initiative that basically brought about the Bass Strait freight equalisation scheme in the Fraser government. It was through Jocelyn being the senior representative from Tasmania that, at the last election, we got the upgraded Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme—the Bass Strait passenger vehicle equalisation scheme.All those benefits to Tasmania can be shown to have come from the commitment of the Newmans. One thing that also impressed me at all times about Kevin and Jocelyn was their personal closeness and commitment to each other. The rigours of public life do take their toll, but it was quite obvious that Kevin and Jocelyn made time to ensure that their private life was not adversely affected. Can I say, on behalf of the Liberal Party in my home state of Tasmania, that Kevin will be remembered as a hero of the Liberal Party, especially given his efforts in the 1975 Bass by-election. He will be remembered as an activist and a worker. On behalf of all Liberals in Tasmania and especially my wife, Michelle, I offer our sincere condolences to Senator Newman, Kate and Campbell.16:26:007010Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I wish to associate myself with the condolence motion for Kevin Eugene Newman. My colleagues have spoken about his distinguished military career. I have to mention that, at the funeral service, Senator Calvert referred to the amusing story about Kevin Newman having arrived at Old Parliament House in a pair of army pyjamas, when he was dumped there by some of his military colleagues. I think that showed the sense of fun that he had then, a sense of fun that he never lost.His parliamentary career has been referred to and the fact that he served almost all of his parliamentary career as a minister. People have referred to the achievements of that ministry. Others have referred to his community service in a wide range of areas since he left parliament. I cannot do anything better than quote from the words of Kevin himself from the book, Partners, which Senator Calvert referred to. I want to read an extract from that book:There aren't too many New Age guys in my generation.I think that most of us of my age could say, `Hear, hear,' to that. The extract continues:It's enjoyable supporting Joc and keeping the home running, simply because she now has her chance to follow a challenging career which she never had while she supported me.As we know, he was often up there in the gallery when she was answering questions in question time. I know that he kept the home running because I benefited from a great number of meals that he cooked. Also, when I stayed there, he always gave me Milo before I went to bed. So I fondly referred to him as my `Milo man' and that name stuck for the whole time that I knew Kevin. It is really about my `Milo man' that I am speaking and I am reading extracts from his book. He went on in the book Partners to say:Over recent years we have each had to look a doctor in the eye while we were told we were not immortal. In my case I contracted lupus which in turn attacked my lungs. I now live with an incurable lung disease which is getting worse.I think he showed the practicality of being able to face the fact that he was not immortal with great strength and courage. I think that was something to be admired and most of us would wonder whether we would have that same courage.Kevin also talked about Jocelyn's illness in this book. He said that those two things—the fact that he was ill and the fact that Jocelyn had been ill—were pretty hard to come to terms with. But he went on to say:But it can also be enormously positive. The heightened appreciation of life, love, family and friends is something to be experienced. Every day is special and to be lived to the full. It also helps to put the problems in perspective. Political attacks, be they ever so cruel, are not really of enormous importance. Just to be alive and loved counts for more than fame and fortune.There is a real message for all of us in those few words. He then went on to say:We think fortune has smiled on us. When we married it was for love. But we all know that choosing a mate for life can be a pig-in-a-poke. For us, a long marriage has worked. We have been blessed with great children and grandchildren, we have both had important and influential careers, but best of all, we are still best mates.I think that sums up Kevin to a T. In all those difficulties, he still saw the positive side.I was overwhelmed to be asked by the family to read a lesson at the service. I said to Jocelyn afterwards, `I am sure Kevin would have said, "Good on you, Jocelyn—at least you had one girl participating in the funeral service."' He was truly one of the few New-Age guys of his generation. That lesson was from Ecclesiasticus, from the Apocrypha, chapter 44, verses 1 to 15. It started by saying `let us now give praise to godly men'. It was a wonderful reading. It went on:But we will praise these godly men, whose righteous deeds have never been forgotten. Their reputations will be passed on to their descendants, and this will be their inheritance.His reputation—as Senator Knowles said—as an officer and a gentleman will be passed on to his descendants and will be their inheritance. We said let us praise godly men: Kevin was a godly man, a gentleman and a gentle man. My sympathy goes to Jocelyn, Kate and Campbell, and his grandchildren, whom he absolutely adored—and we often saw him with them in the corridors here and having a coffee, especially at Aussies. My deepest condolences and sympathy go also to his sister, his extended family and his friends.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Kevin Newman was indeed a very fine man with a very strong commitment to his community and to his family. Tom and I wish to offer our condolences to Jocelyn, Kate, Campbell and their family. I would ask honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.701110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 3 July 1999 of former Senator the Hon. Reginald Bishop AO, a senator for the state of South Australia from 1962 to 1981, and at various times in that period Minister for Repatriation, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and Postmaster-General.16:33:007011Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Saturday, 3 July 1999, of the Honourable Reginald Bishop, AO, a senator for the State of South Australia from 1962 to 1981, Postmaster-General from 1974 to 1975, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence from 1972 to 1974 and from June to November 1975, and Minister for Repatriation for 1972 to 1974, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Reginald Bishop was born on 4 February 1913 in Adelaide, South Australia. He left school at 15 and commenced work with the South Australian Railways at Islington as a clerk. From the very beginning Reg was an active member of the trade union movement and had a lifelong interest in industrial relations matters more generally. In that vein, before entering federal politics Reg worked as an official with the South Australian branch of the Australian Railways Union from 1937 until 1956. He became a full-time organiser for them at just 24 years of age. Reg was the Secretary of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council from 1956 until 1962 and during this time was also Commissioner of the South Australian Board of Industry. In addition to this, Reg was a member of the South Australian Advisory Committee on Workmen's Compensation from 1957 until 1961 and an Executive Member of the ACTU from 1956 until 1962.In fact, Reg's lifelong support for workers was a feature of his parliamentary service. In his maiden speech Reg spoke of matters such as the economy and unemployment in his typical no-nonsense manner. During World War II, Reg Bishop enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force. He served from 23 February 1943 until his discharge on 4 January 1946. During this time he served in Darwin and in Borneo. Reg Bishop entered federal parliament in 1962 having been elected to the Senate for South Australia the previous year. He was re-elected to the Senate a further three times, leaving parliament at the expiration of his term in 1981. Reg Bishop's contribution to the parliament included his considerable committee service. This included serving on many committees, including the Senate Standing Committee for the Library, the Senate Standing Committee for Regulations and Ordinances, the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs, and the Foreign Affairs and Defence committee, as it subsequently became. He also spent some time on the Senate Select Committee for Container Method of Handling Cargoes during 1967-68 and did numerous periods on Senate estimates committees. Reg also participated in various delegations, conferences and visits during his Senate career.The aspect of Reg Bishop's distinguished service for which he will perhaps be best remembered will be as the last Postmaster-General of Australia. In this capacity he oversaw the creation of Telecom and Australia Post. Other initiatives included the abolition of television and radio licence fees and the part he played in the introduction of FM radio in Australia. In 1984 Reg Bishop was appointed an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia for his service to politics and government. He will be remembered by all who knew him and served with him as a passionate trade unionist as well as a dedicated senator and minister. Sadly, Reg Bishop lost his wife, Connie, in 1997 after, I understand, more than 60 years of marriage. On behalf of the government, I extend to his children Romola and Phillip and their families our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.16:37:007012Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I associate the opposition with the condolence motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the death of Reg Bishop, a former minister in the Whitlam government. There is a great deal of sadness and regret in the Labor Party at Reg Bishop's death. He was truly a great Labor stalwart. I think it makes many of us realise that, of the figures who were so important and instrumental in the reforms and changes that occurred in this country in the early 1970s, that special time in Labor politics, a number are now disappearing from our lives.Reg Bishop played a vital role in the Whitlam government, but for a very long period of time he had been a very significant figure in the Labor Party in the state of South Australia. He was one of those people who, in the 1950s and 1960s, really built and revitalised the South Australian Labor Party. I am sure he will be remembered by so many in the Labor Party for his loyalty and his dedication to the party and the broader Labor movement. He was one of those no-nonsense people, dedicating himself and his life in tireless work for the Labor cause.Reg Bishop was a son of South Australia. He worked in the South Australian Railways from an early age—as a teenager. That really was the first step in his becoming very involved with the union movement which, again, was a lifelong commitment for him. Reg became a full-time organiser of the Australian Railways Union at the age of 24 and, except for a comparatively short period of three years when during World War II he served in the Royal Australian Air Force, he worked for the Australian Railways Union until 1956 when he became the Secretary of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council.In 1961, as we have heard, he became a senator; he was elected in 1961 and his term commenced in June 1962. That was the commencement of a very distinguished 19 years in the federal parliament. But the highlight was his being appointed minister in the Whitlam government, first as Minister for Repatriation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence—he was appointed to those portfolios in 1972—and then in 1974 he became Postmaster-General, the last person to hold that position in Australian politics. As Postmaster-General he oversaw enormous changes. One of the biggest changes in the postal and telecommunications arena that we have ever seen made by an Australian government, the creation of those two separate entities now known by the Australian community as Australia Post and Telstra, was in no small measure due to his administrative and political skills and his vision as Postmaster-General.I would like to say, in speaking on this condolence motion, that Reg Bishop will be remembered by people in the Labor Party as someone who was a true believer. He was a hardworking, straight-talking bloke who served his country with distinction but always had such great pride in the Labor Party and the Labor movement. In relation to the Labor movement, the name of Reg Bishop became a byword for loyalty. He made a great contribution to the Labor movement. He was a great stalwart of the Labor Party, and we will never forget that. On behalf of the opposition, I express sincere sympathy to members of his family and all his friends and supporters in the Labor Party and the broader Labor movement in South Australia. This was truly a great Labor man who died recently and whose contribution we remember today in the Senate.16:43:007013Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I wish to associate the National Party with the condolence motion moved by the government for Reg Bishop who passed away in July, aged 86. Reg Bishop was born in Adelaide and spent the majority of his life representing the people of that state both in the union movement and in the federal parliament. His working career began in the railways. He then served in the RAAF during World War II with postings to Darwin and Borneo.Reg Bishop had a long involvement in the union movement. He began as an official for the Australian Railways Union and later served as union secretary of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council, Commissioner of the South Australian Board of Industry and executive member of the ACTU. Reg Bishop represented the people of South Australia as a senator for almost 20 years—from 1962 to 1981. During his distinguished parliamentary career Reg Bishop served Australia as the Minister for Repatriation, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and Postmaster-General. Reg Bishop was the last Postmaster-General and undertook one of the largest administrative reforms in Australia's history by creating Australia Post and Telecom.As a minister in the Whitlam government, he played a role in some of the most controversial political events in Australian history. After retiring from the Senate in 1981, Reg Bishop led a full and active life and continued to be involved in the South Australian Labor Party. I wish to extend the sympathy of the National Party to his children, family and friends.16:45:007013Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I rise to associate myself with the condolence motion on the passing of former Senator Reg Bishop. It was a particularly sad occasion for me and my wife personally when we received the news that Reg had passed away, because during the halcyon days of the Whitlam government I had worked on Reg's staff for over two years. I was his senior private secretary both when he was Minister for Repatriation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and when he was Postmaster-General—the last Post master-General in Australia's history. I will return to that shortly.Reg gave me great advice, assistance and comradeship during the time I worked for him. When I first went to work for him I was 24 years of age, a very young and enthusiastic supporter and member of the Labor Party. But Reg—being an experienced, wise trade union leader and a long-serving senator for the Labor Party—offered much useful advice to me and to others, particularly young people, about the way to make one's way through the often Byzantine nature of the Labor Party, the way to treat others and the way to work out the upside and downside of politics.The two years I spent with Reg on his staff was the most valuable learning experience that I have had in politics. I had previously studied politics for three years at Adelaide University. Reg taught me more in three weeks than I learnt in three years at Adelaide University on the theoretical side of politics. What Reg taught me in practice has stood me in very good stead through all the years I have been involved in the Labor Party, both as an official and as a member of parliament. Reg's career was a great one for the Labor Party. He grew up in the west end of Adelaide, a traditional Labor area in the 1920s and 1930s, in an overcrowded working-class suburb that is no longer there because of the change in the urban demography of Adelaide. But Reg was very proud of the fact that he was a west end kid. At the age of 15 he left school and got a job as a clerk with the South Australian Railways in the very late 1920s. Because of his active mind, he became very active as a young clerk in the trade union movement in his workplace at the Islington railway workshops.In 1937, at the age of 24 or 25, he became a full-time organiser for the ARU, the Australian Railways Union. He used to tell me about being provided with an old motorbike to go touring around the rural areas of South Australia, particularly Eyre Peninsula, on gravel and dirt roads, visiting those small townships on the narrow-gauge railway of Eyre Peninsula to organise for the union. He was in that union for nearly 19 years, apart from the three years he served in the Royal Australian Air Force in Darwin and in Borneo during the Second World War. In 1956 he stood for election as secretary of that union and was defeated in a ballot at the time of the Labor Party split. It was—in his terms, to me and others—the most disappointing part of his life in the labour movement that he was defeated for that position of secretary. But, just as a defeat in the Labor Party sometimes opens up other new opportunities, within six months he had been approached and supported to become Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council of South Australia in 1956. He put his energy into that job and reorganised the Trades and Labour Council of South Australia to make it a more effective organisation that represented the broad trade union movement in South Australia.At the same time he ensured that the trade union movement in South Australia was working in a united way with the Labor Party to bring about the election of a state Labor government. Reg was one of those people behind the scenes who did an enormous amount of work—with others such as Clyde Cameron and Jim Toohey and, of course, up-front Don Dunstan and others—to bring about the election of a state Labor government and ultimately to bring about the election of a federal Labor government. Through all of this period that Reg was active in the trade union movement, the Labor Party in South Australia was getting some of its best election results ever, and Reg should take great credit for assisting in those results. In the 1961 federal election he was elected to the Senate, taking up his place here in 1962, and he served in the Senate until his term expired in June 1981—some 19 years. He spent a number of those years on the front bench in opposition and then became a minister, as I have already said, in the Whitlam government. His achievement as Postmaster-General is quite striking. When he took over as Postmaster-General, a royal commission had just been completed which showed that the administration of the Postmaster-General's Department, particularly postal services, was in a dreadful mess. Some may remember the mess of the Redfern mail exchange and the delay in mail deliveries. Reg set about implementing those recommendations to overcome the industrial anarchy that existed, which was brought about not only because of the workers themselves but also because of bad management. He used his considerable knowledge of industrial relations and rapidly improved the situation in the post office. He also put into place the recommendations to break the PMG up into two new statutory authori ties—Telecom Australia and Australia Post. This was a massive piece of legislation that went through this parliament in late 1974, early 1975. At that time there were 120,000 employees in the Australian post office and, as far as I am aware, he reorganised the PMG into two statutory organisations without any direct industrial dispute. Reg was a strong believer in public enterprise. He strongly believed in the right for those services of the old PMG to be provided to the community in public ownership. I know he was as distressed as anybody when in 1996 this present government started the privatisation process of what we now call Telstra. That achievement alone will be remembered as a major achievement in anyone's history of the Australian parliament.Reg retired in 1981 but, being the active person he was, he continued his involvement, support and interest in the Labor Party, the Trades and Labour Council of South Australia and, in particular, the Labour Day celebrations. Reg was always on everybody's back about making sure they turned up at Labour Day marches. He did everything possible to keep the Labour Day march and the Labour Day celebrations going as he saw it as a commemoration of all those people in the trade union movement, going back over 100 years, who had worked to improve the working conditions of ordinary Australians.As Senator Faulkner said, Reg was a very direct person. He would always tell you very directly and honestly what he thought about an idea, but he never carried a chip on his shoulder and he never carried a vendetta. Within the Labor Party he used to say, `Remember that your political enemy in the Labor Party this month may be your political ally next year. So never close off all your options for dialogue or consultation.' When he became a minister he found that some of the things he was saying as minister in accordance with a government brief were contrary to what he used to say in opposition. He said, `Hansard is replete with contradictions where you change sides from being opposition to government.' He said, `It is always difficult to be 100 per cent consistent but one should always try to be that in politics.'I believe that Reg Bishop not only at the federal parliamentary level but, in particular, at the state level in South Australia has been one of the half a dozen key figures who has over the last 50-odd years made a contribution beyond any other to the Labor Party's success in South Australia. He was not one to be up in neon lights—Reg did not seek much publicity for himself—but those of us who have followed him have lived on the success he created for the Labor Party. It was a very great honour for me to have had the opportunity to work on Reg's staff during those times of the Whitlam government and to have accepted his advice when I became secretary of the party. Through difficult times he was always ready to offer advice when you sought it from him but he never did it in a way that was like trying to tell you how to suck eggs or that he knew better. He was very clever at providing advice in a way in which you could take it and mould your ideas accordingly. Therefore, his passing at the age of 86 is a great loss for the Labor Party in South Australia.He lived most of this century for the Labor Party in South Australia and his contribution was significant. He worked full time for the Labor Party for over 60 years of his life—from a mid-teenager to when he died—and that is a remarkable record. He lost his wife Connie only a couple of years ago. She was a great stalwart and worker for the Labor movement in her own right. He leaves a family and grandchildren who were the delight of his life when I worked for him, and he leaves many great memories for many of us in South Australia. All I can say is: as long as many of us continue in this place and elsewhere in South Australia, his contribution will never be forgotten.16:57:007016Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I thank Senator Quirke for allowing me to intervene here as I have a meeting at 5 p.m. I do not know whether I am the only one here who was serving in the parliament when Reg was here, but I do remember taking over Reg's office when he became a minister. That was very interesting. His press secretary at the time had left some very interesting material in the drawers. Not being terribly interested in the material, I was able to give it back to Reg.Reg did a lot of unsung work, if you like. It has been observed that he was very direct in what he said. I found him not only to be direct but also to have some very well chosen words. When you discussed some things with him he would use a particular phrase which I will not use here—it is not obscene, but it is not parliamentary—and you would know where you stood. He would be able to go through other things with you and discuss them face to face.The portfolios that he held were indeed portfolios in which he made his mark. He said that he obviously dealt with all people, irrespective of their background, in the same way: he did not waste his words. I think that is an important and likeable characteristic for a member of parliament. I suppose people would say, `It is a pity there are not a few more of you.' I express my condolences to Reg's family, his daughter and son particularly, and to his many friends in South Australia. I associate myself very firmly with this motion of condolence.17:00:007016Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I wish to be associated with this condolence motion as well. I understand that in Reg Bishop's time here Senator Harradine, Senator Watson and, for a very short time, Senator Reid served with Reg. Reg used to always tell me that the best thing was to live long enough so no-one could actually remember you. Indeed, Reg had a long life. It is very sad for myself and for others who used to meet regularly with Reg. I can quite honestly say that we used to lean on Reg for advice. We used to get very good first-class advice, but we also got a mateship, a friendship, out of it. Indeed, I think it can be said that Reg Bishop was a man who gave himself to the Labor Party, who gave himself to the Labor movement and who gave himself to people. He was always there.Reg had a long life. He was born some 12 years after Federation. His life covered every major political and historical event of this century until a matter of a few weeks ago. Other speakers in here have given biographical details of when he joined the trade union movement, when he first went to work—which I understand was in 1927—when he became the secretary of the Trades and Labour Council and when he came to the Senate. I want to discuss the importance of this man to the Labor Party and to the Labor movement as such.I well remember how I met Reg Bishop. I had made some comments at a state council meeting and Reg came up to me. He did not like what I had to say. I cannot remember exactly what it was now. I tried to remember for the eulogy at the funeral. It was something I said which upset one of my great friends, Georgie Whetherall. Neither George nor I could remember what it was, but such was the role that Reg played that I remember him coming up to me in the Trades Hall bar, buying me a drink and then taking me around the corner and saying, `Look, you got this wrong tonight. This is what you should have said,' or words to that effect.Reg had a way of bringing people together. In fact, when he left the Senate, Reg's role was not only to keep the trade union movement strong in South Australia, to keep the Labor Party strong, but also to foster the next generation of Labor people in federal and state politics. All the political generations were at his funeral—from Gough Whitlam and many of the surviving ministers of that period right the way through to many people in Young Labor today and teenagers. They all knew Reg. They looked forward to meeting him. He was the sort of fellow who, when he came into your office, no matter what you were doing or what your staff were doing, they took time to talk with because they knew they were talking to a living legend. It is very sad that Reg is no longer with us. I will miss the many Friday lunches I used to have with him where we would range over topics and I would watch as party members would be in awe of this man and the stories he could tell and the range of views he could bring to any discussion which took place.I think on the Thursday night before his funeral—in fact, I know that was the night; we had our state council—an argument erupted at the state council which I found rather interesting at the time. Somebody got up—I will not mention any names—and invoked Reg's name. They said, `Look, effectively this would never have happened. Reg would never have sanctioned this. Reg would never have done that. Reg would never have done this.' Somebody else got up and took objection to it and said that we should not say that about somebody who so recently had died. In fact, I always took the view, and I still do, that it is better to be remembered that way than not to be remembered at all.While sitting back listening to this argument going on, I thought it was rather amusing that we were actually sitting in the Bishop Auditorium. And, yes, it was named after Reg Bishop for the work he did to build the Trades Hall in South Australia. Reg was a distinguished politician. He was a distinguished Labor senator. He was a distinguished trade unionist. There are many things which, in the end, could proudly be said are on Reg Bishop's masthead.He loved his family. He loved his wife. I spoke in here in an adjournment debate in September 1997 when Connie died. Connie had had a stroke. She was not very well at all. She had a very sad and terrible end. For the 18 months or so before that time, Reg was there every day. I quite often used to drive him out to where Connie was. Even at the age of 86 Reg got around. Reg had no problems whatsoever with any kind of mobility. His end came very quickly. In many respects, after what he went through with Connie, I think that that in itself was a blessing.Reg was a religious man. Reg was a man who believed very strongly in loyalty. Reg was a man who dominated his era in politics here, in South Australia and wherever he was. He was a larger than life figure. I am proud to have known him. Some of my great memories in the Labor Party are the times I spent with Reg, with Jim Toohey and with some of the others who were there. I am grateful that I lived through these times and that I met some of the great men of the Australian Labor Party.17:06:007017Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also rise to speak to this condolence motion. I regret that I was not able to be present at Reg Bishop's funeral because I was in the middle of the Tanami Desert at the time and could not get back. But I do take this opportunity to speak not just as a Labor Party senator but also as a former staffer of Reg Bishop. I worked with him initially in the veterans' affairs portfolio, Repatriation as it then was, and also when he was Postmaster-General.I came here in 1981 when Reg Bishop retired from this place—in essence, I took his place. Reg, as everyone has said this afternoon, was a special person. He was amiable. He had a cheerful disposition. If you got something wrong, he very clearly and quickly told you so, but it did not damage the ongoing relationships within the office. But he was also crafty, cunning and extremely capable, and I think the Senate records would bear witness to that. Many of his achievements have been mentioned this afternoon by Senator Schacht and Senator Quirke—those as a trade unionist, a senator and a minister—but one thing that needs to be noted about Reg is his humble beginnings. Despite those beginnings, he never let success take carriage of him.In a sense, Reg and I are and were so different with so many years between us and different cultural backgrounds altogether, but we did ironically share quite a bit, and it was not just the Australian Labor Party and some involvement with the trade union movement. Reg was also a long-time dedicated member of the West Adelaide Football Club, a club of which I was a committee member for some 10 years, and we would always talk about the politics of the club and how the club was going on the field.But the origin that we did share was where we were both born. Ironically, though, and decades apart, Reg and I were born in Hocking Place in Adelaide, just off Sturt Street and just around the corner from St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army and from Whitemore Square. It is a little street with some 14 or 15 houses. I went back there last week for some reason and noticed that very little had changed—most of them are all 60, 70 or 80 years old. In a sense it is a dead-end street, but it is a street from which two senators of the national parliament have been produced, and Reg and I always talked about the fact that two of us came from a street of about 15 houses—a street that was and continues to be basically in one of the poorer parts of Adelaide. Whitemore Square still has its unfair share of homeless and unemployed frequenting the street, the Salvation Army is still full and St Vincent de Paul still gets a big roll up at about 6 o'clock at night.We did share that and we did share the essence of being westenders, something that never left him till his death and something that I am sure I will carry with me while I am alive. It was a twist of fate, therefore, that I took his place in the Senate, and I can assure other senators that I was not back in Hocking Place to try to find future Senate candidates for the Labor Party. There are enough of those around already.I worked with Reg for quite some years. It was my first job in politics. I worked with Chris Schacht, and Reg had as one of his great friends John Quirke. That ambit of friendships, that ambit of personalities, reflected in the three names that I mentioned shows what a special character Reg Bishop actually was. Having had Bolkus, Schacht and Quirke in common as friends makes him an extraordinary character in one sense or another.We had a bit of history together when in 1974 we were working for the Whitlam government. Between Reg Bishop, Don Cameron, Chris Schacht and me, we started the Chinatown Friday lunch club, which I think continues to exist. The bottles of Ben Ean and moselle that we started drinking in the 1970s have probably run out, and so probably has the Queen Adelaide riesling. Senator Faulkner looks around in surprise, but the Chinatown lunch club still continues as one of those informal institutions of Labor politics in South Australia.Much has been said of his humble origins. Chris Schacht mentioned the work he did as an organiser with the Railways Union. One thing I am reminded of consistently—I was by Reg and I have been by some of his former colleagues in recent weeks—is the fact that, when Reg was an organiser out in the peninsula, out in the back blocks, his one form of mobility was a pedal bike as opposed to the cars that are available now. He was not afraid of hard work and dedication. He was also crafty. Senator Harradine mentioned one of the words that Reg would often use, and it is a word that appears in the story I am about to tell.I remember being with him in the AMP building when he was Postmaster-General and it was the lead-up to budget decision making in 1974 and the Postmaster-General's Department advised him that the price of local calls had to go up and there was no option but to increase them by a large amount. The reasons were technical: all the telephone boxes across the country could not take anything other than 20c as opposed to the then current rate of 5c or thereabouts. Reg's response was, in a sense, one word. It starts with frog, the next two letters are `sh', and he basically told the senior officers that there was another way around it. They insisted that they were right, but he told them all to jump into the car with him. They drove down to the local PMG depot and spoke to a local mechanic who assured him that what he wanted to do could be done, which consequently put senior officers of the Postmaster-General's Department back in their box.Reg, as Chris Schacht said, was a giant in Labor politics and, as Senator Quirke mentioned, was so till the end. Connie was an important part of his life, and we all got to know and cherish relationships with her. In summary, I will say that Reg Bishop was one of West End's best. I also offer my condolences to his family.17:13:007018Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I wish to join in supporting this condolence motion for former Senator Reg Bishop. Most everything that needs to be said has been said. I just wanted to put on the record my own particular and special experience of Reg Bishop. He retired from the Senate just as I arrived into it, but he belonged to a special group of Labor Party people in South Australia who were extremely strong in encouraging women into the Labor Party—and I would include amongst those people like Mick Young, perhaps first and foremost, Jim Toohey and Geoff Virgo, to name some of them. People like Reg Bishop, I know and acknowledge, contributed to my being given the nod for preselection for politics in South Australia.That may not be a characteristic that distinguishes him or makes him mighty by many people's criteria, but it certainly does by mine. But it was also not a fashionable view at the time. It is important to remember that for a while there the Labor Party was way out in front with the preselection of women and that we could be successful in House of Representatives or Senate preselections only if men in the Labor Party supported us because the women in the Labor Party could not achieve that; they did not have 50 per cent. Regretfully, I suspect it is probably true that they still do not have 50 per cent, and one would not presume that all women would necessarily want to vote on the same side.BH4HILLSenator Hill—They judge other women pretty harshly.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I would think this would be a point that you would have great sympathy for, Senator Hill. Unanimity of view or support, I guess we are talking about here, whatever the gender. So I think that is the first thing I would have to note about Reg.Secondly—and this word has been mentioned already—Reg was unfailingly generous and unfailingly prepared to listen. No matter what time of day or how tired he was, Reg was always prepared to give an ear and pay serious attention to what you were saying. He did not have that `I've got to go, come back later' attitude. `Generous' is the word I would use about Reg.Reg and Connie were a duo of the same character—exactly the same. It is a pity we cannot in some way find the words that would so fully describe these people who were, until the time of Connie's death, really devoted to each other and to their families, their children and grandchildren. They were also very supportive of each other. If Reg wanted to promote and support an aspiring young Senator Rosemary Crowley, then Connie would too. Not that she followed Reg; she made up her own mind. Likewise, if Connie were to support an issue in the Labor Party, then Reg would join her in that.Quite clearly, they were people of independent mind and different opinion but also very able to talk things through and arrive at a point of agreement. In fact, I think Connie belonged with a special group of women called the Hawker Ladies in the federal seat of Hawker who at one stage were very able to explain to the men in the Labor Party that, despite what the men in the Labor Party thought about the role of women in the Labor Party, these women were about to tell them their description was not sufficient; and they proceeded to set in motion and establish the so-called Hawker Ladies, who worked for the Labor Party, raised funds for the Labor Party, supported all sorts of candidates over many years and were characteristic of the party at the time—to do with generosity, to do with an understanding of what the Labor movement was on about, to do with why it was so important to have Labor governments and to make sure that the people they worked for were represented by legislation, programs and services which would ensure that they were able to live the kinds of lives they wanted, to make things okay for them but in particular to make it better for their kids. Reg and Connie were quintessential, core Labor Party people of that mould and they belong, I think, to a very special piece of history in the Labor Party in South Australia. I appreciated the support over many years of the Hawker Ladies.Connie Bishop and Reg Bishop were a team. They were unfailing in their generosity and their contribution, for those values that they held so very dear they in fact lived out through their day-to-day living. There was no `now I am at the Labor Party' and `now I am going to be an ordinary citizen'. The values that they held dear were the sorts of values they believed in the Labor Party, in their family, amongst their friends and in all the community and charitable work that they were involved in. They were actually splendid exemplars, and it is a shame that we will now depend on stories told about them rather than the full oral histories that perhaps we have missed the opportunity to really get from such people.I want to put on the record my appreciation of them for being the sort of people they were in that they were able to model that without ever looking for their name in lights; never did they seek that. But they were a model couple of the sorts of values that were so dear to their hearts. I also want to acknowledge that they were great supporters of mine. I would like to place on the record that until the day I die I will appreciate their support—today, in particular, Reg Bishop's support.That does not cover the important things that others have said about Reg's origins in West Adelaide and his contribution to the union movement and politics. I can only concur with everything my colleagues have said. I wanted to take this opportunity to put my somewhat different appreciation of Reg and Connie on the public record and also to take the opportunity to convey my deepest sympathy to their children and grandchildren on the loss of two very special people.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I ask honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.702010000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 8 July 1999, of the Hon. Malcolm George Mackay, AM, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Evans from 1963 to 1972 and Minister for the Navy from 1971 to 1972.17:21:007020Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I move:That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on Thursday, 8 July 1999, of the Reverend Doctor the Honourable Malcolm Mackay, AM, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Evans in the State of New South Wales from 1963 to 1972 and Minister for the Navy from March 1971 to December 1972, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.Malcolm George Mackay was born on 29 December 1919 at Brighton, South Australia. Malcolm was educated at the Adelaide Technical High School and, after finishing school, became a cadet engineer with the Adelaide Electric Supply Company.Malcolm was a man of several careers—public, private and parliamentary—all earnestly pursued and complementary to his central faith and values. During World War II, Malcolm was mobilised as a sublieutenant in the Royal Australian Naval Volunteer Reserve from 1941 until 1944, during which time he served in the New Guinea area. He was discharged on demobilisation with the rank of acting lieutenant.After the war, Malcolm Mackay studied at the universities of both Adelaide and Melbourne, gaining a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Divinity, before working his way to Britain where he enrolled at the University of Edinburgh and gained his doctorate degree. Malcolm then returned to Australia and began a long and distinguished career with the Presbyterian Church. From 1954 until 1956 he was the General Secretary, Australia, for the World Council of Churches; in 1957 he became the first Australian-born minister of Sydney's Scots Church; he was the Foundation Master of Basser College at the University of New South Wales from 1959.Malcolm Mackay entered federal parliament as the member for Evans in 1963. He served the McMahon government as Minister for the Navy from 1971 until he left the parliament in 1972. During his parliamentary career, Malcolm served as Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits from September 1970 until March 1971. He was a member of the parliamentary delegation to Indo-China in 1970 and led an Australian parliamentary mission to Japan and Korea in 1972. One of his many achievements was becoming founding president of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia. He remained an executive member of the association until his death.Malcolm's public activities included conducting a weekly current affairs television program, The Burning Question, from 1957 until 1961 before moving to the ABC for the program Open Hearing from 1963 to 1971. Malcolm Mackay's concerns for the young people of Australia were clear throughout all of his public activities and, indeed, from the start of his parliamentary career. In his first speech he spoke extensively on the need for educational resources. He praised youth as `having a zest for living and an inquiring mind'.After he left the political scene in 1972, he spent five years in Scotland, much of the time writing articles and a book, More than Coincidence. In 1979 he was Assistant Minister of Scots Church Melbourne and Acting Minister at St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Canberra in 1991. His enthusiasm for, and faith in, the future of Australia was recognised when in 1986 Malcolm was appointed as a member in the Order of Australia for service to the community, particularly in the fields of religion, education and politics.Tragically, Malcolm Mackay was killed in a motor vehicle accident which also claimed the life of his wife of over 40 years, Ruth. On behalf of the government, I extend to their children Andrew and Margaret and to their families our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.17:26:007021Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00— I would, on behalf of the opposition, associate the opposition with the motion that Senator Hill has moved on behalf of the government on the death of the Hon. Rev. Dr Malcolm Mackay. As Senator Hill has indicated, Dr Mackay was a member of the McMahon government and a former minister in that government and had a very interesting background that he brought to the Commonwealth parliament. He was highly educated and had quite a diverse career—before he entered politics in the early 1960s—as a cadet engineer and then, of course, as a devoted Presbyterian, a lay preacher and home missionary in the Adelaide Hills. He served as a minister in a number of Presbyterian parishes in rural New South Wales and Victoria. From 1954 until 1956 he was the General Secretary, Australia, for the World Council of Churches and then in 1957 became minister of the Scots Church, the first Australian to achieve that office.Compared with his life in the church, his parliamentary career was relatively brief. He entered federal parliament in 1963 in the seat of Evans and held that seat until 1972 and was appointed Minister for the Navy by the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, in 1971. He was someone who continued his interest in politics after his time in the parliament and became the founding president and an executive member of the Association of Former Members of Parliament of Australia.On behalf of the opposition, I join with the government in expressing the opposition's sincere condolences to Dr Mackay's family on the tragic death of Dr Mackay and his wife in a car accident. To his family and friends we express our sincere condolences.17:30:007021Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I rise to associate the National Party in the Senate with the condolence motion, moved by Senator Hill on behalf of the government, for the Hon. Dr Malcolm George Mackay, who passed away with his wife last month at the age of 79. Malcolm Mackay was born and raised in Adelaide. He began his working career as a cadet engineer with the Adelaide Electric Supply Company. He served Australia in World War II from 1941 as a sublieutenant in the Royal Australian Navy Volunteer Reserve. He was discharged on demobilisation in 1944 with the rank of acting lieutenant.Malcolm Mackay was firmly committed to the Presbyterian Church. During his days as an engineer, he spent time preaching and was a home missionary at Mount Barker in the Adelaide Hills. He held ministries in regional New South Wales and Victoria, and he became general secretary of the World Council of Churches in Australia. In 1957, he became the first Australian to be appointed minister of the Scotch Church in Sydney. Before his political life began, Malcolm compered a religious affairs program on Channel 7 and a current affairs program on the ABC. In 1963, he was elected to parliament in the federal seat of Evans, and later became Minister for the Navy from 1971 to 1972 in the McMahon government. He was chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits from 1970 to 1971. He led the Australian parliamentary mission to Japan and Korea in 1970. During his time in government he always stuck to his conservative beliefs. He was often described as one of the most conservative people in parliament. After being defeated in the 1972 election, he moved to Scotland before returning to Australia in 1981. In 1988, he became the founding president of the Association of Former Members of Parliament of Australia.Today I wish to extend my sympathy to his family and offer them the condolences of the National Party.Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.Miscellaneous702217:31:007022Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I seek leave of the Senate to table a declaration. It is not a petition. The declaration has been discussed with the opposition and the representatives of minor parties, and I have got approval to seek leave to have it tabled. It is a declaration signed by several hundred people individually, asking for support for the abolition of nuclear weapons by the year 2000.Leave granted.702210001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:702212310000VICE-CHAIRMANTo the Honourable the President of the Senate and Senators assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain members of the La Trobe University community points out to the Senate the detrimental effects that Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) legislation will have on the Students of La Trobe University.Draws to the attention of the Senate:If VSU legislation is put in place it will mean the end to vital services provided by Student Organisations such as:Child CareStudent RepresentationAcademic AdvocacyClubs and SocietiesLegal ServiceSport and RecreationEntertainmentDr Kemp states that this legislation will `ensure that all students have the same freedoms on campus that they have off campus'. This is currently the case.Membership of these organisations is already voluntary in that students may choose to be a member or not.Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to reject the VSU legislation.The President10000The President(from 123 citizens)7022410000VICE-CHAIRMANTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows that unsafe practices are being followed in Australia, namely the sale and distribution of genetically modified foods that have not been labelled as such.Your petitioners request that the Senate should take all actions within its power, to prohibit the sale and distribution of all unlabelled genetically modified foods.The President10000The President(from 4 citizens)702210DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 10 citizens)702315DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned call on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the current regulations relating to food content are retained by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority and that adequate food labelling is introduced which allows the Australian community to make a real choice when it comes to the purchase and consumption of food.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support legislation which will ensure that all processed food products sold in Australia be fully labelled. This labelling must include:all additivespercentage of ingredientsnutritional informationcountry of originfood derived from genetically engineered organismsSenator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 15 citizens)702316DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows strong disappointment in the Australian Government's inadequate protection of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area from the destructive practices of prawn trawling. Prawn trawling destroys up to 10 tonnes of other reef life for every one tonne of prawns while clearfelling the sea floor. There are 11 million square kilometres of Australia's ocean territory of which the reef represents just 350,000 square kilometres.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support the phasing out of all prawn trawling in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by the year 2005.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 16 citizens)7023239QD4Brown Sen BobTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate Indonesia's continuing illegal occupation of East Timor, its refusal to withdraw its troops in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 384 and 389, the continuing massive scale of Human Rights abuses, and the continuing takeover of East Timorese land by illegal Indonesian immigrants.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to set up a non-partisan Working Group to work on:1. Rescinding of de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor.2. Supporting the release and repatriation of all East Timorese prisoners in Indonesian jails.3. Providing temporary visas for all East Timorese asylum-seekers in Australia until it is safe for them to return to East Timor.4. Supporting the U.N. Secretary-General in his efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace plan for East Timor.Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 239 citizens)702379QD4Brown Sen BobTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows that citizens of Tasmania think that the government's taxation package, including the goods and services tax, does not provide sufficient information nor detail and hence is open to inequitable application during its implementation.Your petitioners ask/request that the Senate should not pass the legislation until the following questions are resolved fairly and equitable for the citizens of Tasmania:1. How will the government ensure Tasmania is treated fairly in comparison to the more affluent and larger States? Tasmania, on a per capita basis, has the highest unemployment, lowest average weekly wage, the oldest population, the greatest number of people dependent on government income support and the most decentralised population of any state of Australia. The government's model for estimating the cost of the GST does not allow for the different economic and social patterns between states.2. How will the government ensure families can afford good food which will be relatively more expensive in respect to `junk' foods whose price will decrease after the removal of sales tax? Tasmanians pay the highest costs for food in Australia and are among the worst health status population in Australia.3. How will the government ensure that organisations and charities can continue to provide the necessary community services and support to disadvantaged citizens? Community organisations and charities in Tasmania will face a double jeopardy from the implementation of the Tax Package. It is predicted that poverty in Tasmania will increase and more people will be seeking extra assistance. At the same time organisations will have a reduced capacity to meet those needs because of increased administrative costs associated with compliance and in many instances reduced revenue because of the application of the tax to such things as membership fees and fund raising.4. How will government ensure that service quality and scope of education, child care and health services can be maintained without increasing the costs of these services? The government proposes that essential services such as education, child care and health will be GST free. However, community based organisations offering these services will have increased costs arising from the extra administration and accounting requirements of the tax package.Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 79 citizens)702416QD4Brown Sen BobTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows that the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (November 1995) calls for countries throughout the world to commit themselves unequivocally to the establishment of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones.In the light of this, your petitioners are calling upon all Parties represented in the Federal Parliament to actively promote the establishment of such Nuclear Weapons Free and Nuclear Free Zones by ceasing access to all Australian ports by nuclear powered vessels and vessels with a nuclear armaments capacity.Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 16 citizens)702416QD4Brown Sen BobTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate and the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows that attempts by any Australian Government to mine Uranium at the Jabiluka site in the World Heritage Listed area of the Kakadu National Park are considered unacceptable. We are convinced the proposed mine would recklessly endanger the World Heritage values of the Kakadu National Park and ignores the unequivocal opposition of the Mirrar people to the project.Your petitioners request that the Senate and the House of Representatives oppose the intentions of any Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka site.Senator BrownQD4Senator Brown(from 16 citizens)70243908U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or current operating site.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 390 citizens)7024235K4Faulkner Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled:The Petition of the Undersigned shows that we believe that the current Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme provides benefits to retired members which are overly generous and unfair.Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the Australian Government to:Act swiftly to bring the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme in line with community standards by:(1) Reducing the taxpayer subsidy which currently stands at an average of $6 contributed by taxpayers for every $1 contributed by Senators and members;(2) Instructing the Remuneration Tribunal to substantially reduce benefits;(3) Removing the early payment of benefits, so that they are payable at the age of 55 in line with the rest of the community;(4) Supporting the Australian Democrats' Private Members' Bill to overhaul the politicians' superannuation scheme to achieve these aims.Senator Faulkner5K4Senator Faulkner(from 23 citizens)70241873HX5Woodley Sen JohnTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that a Goods and Services Tax (GST) on food will disadvantage low to middle income earners.Your petitioners request that the House does not support the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax, while that legislation includes a GST on food, and that work be undertaken to address the general issue of the fairness of the taxation system in Australia i.e. a total review.Senator WoodleyHX5Senator Woodley(from 1,873 citizens)Petitions received.Miscellaneous702517:32:007025Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—by leave—I apologise to Madam President for incorrectly referring to her as the Speaker whilst congratulating her on her re-election. I formally apologise for that action.Notices70257025Senator Harris to move:(contingent on the Senate on any day concluding its consideration of any item of business and prior to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of another item of business)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate or to provide for the consideration of any other matter.(contingent on the Senate proceeding to the consideration of government documents)That so much of the standing orders relating to the consideration of government documents be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion relating to the order in which the documents are called on by the President.(contingent on a minister moving a motion that a bill be considered an urgent bill)That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent debate taking place on the motion.(contingent on a minister moving a motion to specify time to be allotted to the consideration of a bill, or any stage of a bill)That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent the motion being debated without limitation of time and each senator speaking for the time allotted by standing orders.(contingent on the chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a bill, or any stage of a bill, has expired)That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill, or the stage of the bill, without limitation of time or for a specified time.(contingent on the chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a bill, or any stage of a bill, has expired)That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent the questions being put in respect of any amendments circulated by the Opposition, the Australian Democrats or any Independent Senator, and that such questions be put accordingly.(contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under standing order 75)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving an amendment to the motion.(contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper .(contingent on any senator being refused leave to make a statement to the Senate)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent that senator making that statement.(contingent on a minister at question time on any day asking that further questions be placed on notice)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving a motion that, at question time on any day, questions may be put to ministers until 28 questions, including supplementary questions, have been asked and answered.(contingent on any senator being refused leave to table a document in the Senate)That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the senator moving that the document be tabled.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2000:The progress and adequacy of Australia's policies to reduce global warming, with particular reference to:(a) the effectiveness of Australian policies to reduce greenhouse emissions in the light of Australia's commitments under the framework convention on climate change, including: (i) the appropriateness of Australia's commitments under the framework convention, particularly under the December 1997 Kyoto Protocol, (ii) the effectiveness of Australia's policies in comparison to international practice, such as emissions trading regimes and other measures, and (iii) the level, and greenhouse implications, of the direct and indirect economic incentives currently offered to both fossil fuel and renewable energy projects;(b) whether Australian government programs and policies, both state and federal, are sufficient to provide for the development in Australia of emerging renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, including: (i) the effectiveness of Australia's efforts in relation to other national governments, and (ii) the potential of these technologies to contribute to a reduction in Australia's greenhouse emissions;(c) potential improvements to Australia's policies to reduce greenhouse emissions, in the light of available studies of: (i) current and projected fossil fuel use in Australia, taking into account the effects of current greenhouse reduction policies, trends in transport use of fuels, the use of energy by high-demand manufacturing and changes to electricity ownership and generation, (ii) projected climate change impacts on Australian industries, such as fishing, tourism, agriculture and others, (iii) estimated costs of such economic impacts, to assist cost-benefit analysis of various climate change abatement programs and policies, and (iv) the impact of current land clearing practices and policies on current and projected greenhouse emissions; and(d) the projected effect of climate change on Australia's ecosystems, including, but not limited to: (i) reef systems, (ii) alpine areas, and (iii) wetland areas.Senator Knowles to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and two related bills be extended to 23 August 1999.Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Customs Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 and a related bill be extended to 12 August 1999.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 and on the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 be extended to 12 August 1999.Senator Carr to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate calls on the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Macdonald) to declare that the Geelong Road linking Melbourne and Geelong be treated, by reason of its national importance, either as a national highway or as a road of national importance for the purposes of funding under the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1998 .Senator Harris to move, on the next day of sitting:That—(1) The Senate directs that each senator provide to the President, and the President present to the Senate, on or before the tenth day of sitting after the passage of this resolution, a certification, signed by the senator, that the senator is, to the best of the senator's knowledge, qualified to serve in the Senate under section 44 of the Constitution, together with documentary proof that the senator is not subject to the disability referred to in paragraph 44(i) of the Constitution.(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1), the documentary proof is: (a) a copy of a birth certificate indicating that the senator was born in Australia and a certification signed by the senator that the senator has not subsequently been a citizen of another country; and (b) if the senator was not born in Australia or has ever been a citizen of another country, documentation indicating that the senator has taken all reasonable steps to renounce any foreign nationality or citizenship.Senator Chris Evans to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2000: How, within the legislated principles of Medicare, hospital services can be improved by changes to Commonwealth and state responsibilities, closer working arrangements between the public and private sectors and better national standards for quality of care, with particular reference to:(a) the effectiveness of the Australian Health Care Agreements in delivering adequate hospital funding to meet the demand for public hospital services;(b) how state and federal responsibilities, funding and service arrangements might be improved to remove duplication and the incentives for cost shifting to promote greater efficiency and better health care;(c) how to better coordinate funding and services provided by different levels of government to ensure the appropriate care is provided through the whole episode of care, both in hospitals and the community;(d) whether there has been any reduction in demand on public hospitals as a result of the private health insurance rebate;(e) the extent of use of public hospitals by private patients and the way these costs are provided for under the Australian Health Care Agreements;(f) the impact of privatisation of public hospitals on the cost, availability and quality of service;(g) the scope for private hospitals to tender to deliver services for public patients;(h) the adequacy of currency national reporting arrangements for standards of care, including waiting times; and(i) the effectiveness of quality improvement programs to reduce the frequency of adverse events.Business70277027Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—proposed:That consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted:(a) on Tuesday, 10 August 1999, at approximately 5.45 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senators McLucas and Ludwig to make their first speeches without any question before the chair; and(b) on Wednesday, 11 August 1999, at approximately 12 noon, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senators Tchen and Harris to make their first speeches without any question before the chair.17:36:007027Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I want to ask the Manager of Government Business a question. I just want to be clear on this. Is the 20-minute time limit going to apply to these speeches? Is that the government's proposal?The reason I ask is that, as you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, sometimes a little generosity has been applied. But there might be a little inconsistency here as to whether we enable a senator, if they have not quite completed their remarks in 20 minutes, to have an extension of time. That is the reason I raise this issue. It strikes me that in first speeches we ought to be a little generous in relation to time limits. I wonder if the government has given any thought to this or if, by leave, we could perhaps agree to extend a little more generosity than we normally would, that is all.17:37:007027Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—by leave—I want to support the view that has just been put by my leader, Senator Faulkner. I think under the previous arrangements the whips had in place it was understood that if a first speech went to a maximum of 25 minutes nobody would interrupt. On the last occasion first speeches were given, the President ruled quite correctly in terms of the formal arrangement and cut off a senator giving a first speech. That was never the intention of anyone. On that occasion it had been agreed that the 20 minutes was a guide to new senators and advice was given to some of them that they would not be interrupted if they went a few minutes longer. But that was not then reflected in the resolution.It was always the understanding of the parties that they would be given an indication that they would get 20 or so minutes, but if they needed a few minutes more they would, for probably the only time in their careers, be extended the courtesy of being allowed to finish. I remember one Senator—I think it was Senator Trish Crossin—was stopped before she had finished. I think that was not the intention of anybody. I think Senator Faulkner's point is well made, that we ought to allow a little more flexibility if they go a bit longer.17:38:007028Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—What I might do is amend the time for the commencement of the first speeches to be made by Senators McLucas and Ludwig back to 5.40 p.m. That would allow a maximum of 25 minutes for each of them, so they will not run into the dinner adjournment. I am sure if we do hit the dinner adjournment and Senator Ludwig is still in full flight we could probably be a bit flexible. I know that has been the pattern, but we do not want to let them get into bad habits too soon—as long as they recognise it is a very special deal for very special people in their first week.I seek leave to amend my motion.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I move:Paragraph (a), omit "5.45 p.m.", substitute "5.40 p.m.".17:39:007028Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—On a similar and associated matter which relates to the Manager of Government Business's proposition—the opposition, let me make clear, supports the motion before the chair: is it possible that we run a risk in regard to first speeches on Wednesday that if a senator is speaking at a few minutes to 12.00 and uses the time either for an extensive committee stage contribution or perhaps a second reading speech, there is a potential to run into a problem at 12.45? I am not raising this point to bowl up a googly. I just want to make sure that we allow a little flexibility in the delivery of first speeches.I think Senator Evans's point was well made because there has been a little inconsistency here. Sometimes we have applied a little flexibility; sometimes we have not. I do not think it is really fair to whoever is presiding. If the clock is set at 20 minutes, the President, the Deputy President or the Acting Deputy President is really obligated to ensure that senators are limited in their speaking times. I just raise that with the Manager of Government Business and ask him to be mindful of this.I suspect that we can in an informal way work something out between the parties in relation to this, but I think that—given that we have seven new senators, all of whom will be giving first speeches—now is the time for us to get some consistency into how we apply this issue of the time limit. I think it is difficult to sit down a new senator who requires a minute or two to conclude their first speech. I, for one, would want on this occasion, in these circumstances, to err on the side of flexibility. Where we might not always be as generous in the chamber, I think in these circumstances we ought to be.17:42:007028Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—by leave—I would like to endorse both of the speakers' calls for some leniency. Bearing in mind that there are tight time frames in the chamber, it would be greatly appreciated. I, being the only new senator in the chamber at the moment, feel it would be remiss of me not to speak to this motion and endorse these sentiments. I appreciate the opportunity to do this and ask that consideration be given to extending the time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Campbell, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees702870287028Motion (by Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 10 August 1999 from 6 p.m. to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 . Notices70297029Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on that site or on some other site in Australia be extended to 1 September 1999.7029Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Chair of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee (Senator Collins) for today, relating to the reference of matters to the committee, postponed till the next day of sitting.Business7029702917:44:007029Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to move a motion to provide for an open-ended adjournment debate this evening.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I move:That the time limit of 40 minutes for the adjournment debate not apply today and that the Senate adjourn at the conclusion of the debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business70297029Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: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. Business7029Motion (by Senator Carr)—as amended, by leave—agreed to: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 when done in an environmentally sustainable manner;(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.Documents7029702910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I table Business of the Senate for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999, and a summary of questions on notice for the period 10 November 1998 to 30 June 1999.702910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present documents listed in the attachment to today's Order of Business , which were certified by the President or presented since the Senate last met. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the documents was authorised.The list read as follows—Travelling allowance payments to senators and members made by the Department of the Senate, July to December 1998 (certified by the President on 6 August 1999 )The Treasury—Tax Expenditures Statement 1997-98 (presented to the Temporary Chair of Committees (Senator Calvert) on 9 July 1999 )Parliamentarians' Travel Paid by the Department of Finance and Administration, July to December 1998 (presented to the President on 6 August 1999 )Auditor-General Audit Report no. 1 of 1999-2000—Performance Audit—Implementing purchaser/provider arrangements between the Department of Health and Aged Care and Centrelink (presented to the President on 13 July 1999 )Auditor-General Audit Report no. 2 of 1999-2000—Financial Control and Administration Audit—Use of financial information in management reports (presented to the Deputy President on 15 July 1999 )Auditor-General Audit Report no. 3 of 1999-2000—Performance Audit—Electronic travel authority: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (presented to the Deputy President on 22 July 1999 )Auditor-General Audit Report no. 4 of 1999-2000—Performance Audit—Fraud control arrangements in Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (presented to the Deputy President on 22 July 1999 )7030703010000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the Auditor-General's report No. 5 of 1999-2000 Performance audit—IP Australia: productivity and client service.703017:50:007030Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.The Auditor-General audit report No. 1 of 1999-2000 entitled Performance audit—implementing purchaser/provider arrangements between the arrangements between the Department of Health and Aged Care and Centrelink is very important because it proves once again that the government's aged care reforms have failed. It is a damning report from an independent body on the implementa tion of the government's aged care reforms. It is highly critical of the government's implementation and administration of the reforms.It notes that had the original implementation date of 1 July 1997 remained government policy implementation would not have been adequately progressed to meet the standard required by government. It found project planning and management was inadequate, senior management were unable to properly monitor the implementation of the reforms, implementation was exposed to risks—some of which eventuated but could have been avoided with proper planning—and a lack of accountability in the record of briefings and decisions made by the minister.This report follows on the heels of the Productivity Commission's report into coalescence of nursing home subsidies that highlighted the inadequacies and inequities of a key plank of the government's reforms. Not only were the reforms bad policy but they have been badly, ineffectively implemented. The Audit Office's report is further evidence that the government's rush to reform aged care and dissemble in response to the political pressure that was applied during that time has resulted in bad policy.We have seen in this area budget targets failed to be reached and significant increases in complexity within the system as the government layers more and more accountability processes into the system to try to patch up the errors in the original framework. By the government's own target its reforms have failed. Each of the key elements in the government's aged care reforms have failed to meet the targets that the government set for them or, as in the case of accreditation processes, still remain to be implemented some two years after the reforms were to be introduced.The first area is the income tested fee. In the 1996-97 budget, the government predicted that the income tested fee would raise $160 million over the two years from 1998-99 to 1999-2000. We now find that the fee raised only $31 million over those two years, a shortfall of $129 million. This is one of the government's key planks in its aged care reforms: introducing user pays and allowing us, to use its rhetoric, `to deal with the ageing of the population'. Not only did the fee fail to reach the government's revenue target but it has also proved to be complex and time consuming to administer. Senators should look at page 31 of the report which sets out a flow diagram of how the fee is administered. If you can make any sense of it, you are far better than me. It is a complete shemozzle.Residents and providers are complaining that, where someone's income varies constantly—as in the case of people receiving overseas pensions—the provider has to constantly vary the amount charged and constantly alter the amount refunded to the Commonwealth. It is a nightmare for providers and a real confusion and worry for many older Australians impacted on by this process. This happens even when the person's income changes by only a dollar a fortnight. It is a ludicrous and worrying complexity.I turn to the second element of the reforms: the treatment of concessional residents. For each concessional resident, the Commonwealth pays the provider a concessional resident supplement worth $4,500 a year in place of a bond or charge. The government predicted that 27 per cent of residents would be classified as concessional residents. We now find that almost 50 per cent of residents have been classified as concessional, doubling the cost of the concessional resident supplement to $142 million in 1999-2000, rising to $181 million in 2001-02. The government's projections for the system are wildly inaccurate and the Commonwealth's commitment to funding the system in this area is almost double that predicted.The government has now indicated that it will begin a process of validating the concessional status of residents, that is, to try to put something in place to fix up the mess made in the original aged care reforms. This will be another process put into the system which will add complexity and be a further confusion to both providers and residents. At the same time, the government is creating a separate category of charge-exempt residents and more complexities to finally deliver on its commitment to those residents in nursing homes before 1 October 1997 who have been forced to pay the accommodation charges despite the promise of the Prime Minister. Only after Labor campaigned on this issue did the government show any interest in delivering on its commitment, and that is after residents have been paying the charge for 18 months.The third plank in the government's reforms was the resident classification scale. The new single classification scale for determining the level of subsidy paid to providers has run into serious trouble. The department is publishing constant updates on its web page outlining changes to how the scale should be applied. This has served only to add to the amount of material that staff have to be across in dealing with and classifying residents. Because of these constant changes to the RCS, a recent national validation of 2,500 residents found that half were over-classified according to records reviewed.With the threat of having residents validated and funding reduced on the basis of residents' records, providers are now complaining that staff are spending more and more time ensuring that the residents' records are letter-perfect and less time actually caring for the residents. The quality of care is being directly affected by the complexities and bureaucracy being layered into the system. The government is so confident in its own system that, in the 1999-2000 budget, it has allowed for over $93 million of mistakes being made in classifying residents. At the same time, it has increased the number of checks that it is carrying out on residents under its own system.I turn briefly to the other plank: the accreditation of aged care facilities. On 4 December 1998, the Senate passed legislation to allow for the setting of a schedule of fees for the accreditation of facilities. At the time, the government insisted that the legislation was urgent as the accreditation process needed to begin as soon as possible. That was on 4 December 1998, but we have still not seen the principles. The minister has still not been able to drag herself up to gazette those principles. The 3,000 residential aged care facilities are facing a January 2001 deadline, by which time they must be accredited. For the providers, every month is critical and they have been justifiably frustrated by the minister's inability to get the accreditation system under way—no-one has yet been accredited. I understand that the minister is, rather belatedly, meeting today with the sector on this matter, nine months after the relevant legislation was passed and with less than 18 months remaining to accredit 3,000 facilities.The minister's failure to get accreditation going is compounded by her failure to deal with facilities that fail to meet required standards. Her failure to shut down those facilities was recently widely reported in the press. The minister quickly attempted to blame Labor for her own inability to act on this critical issue under provisions in the government's own Aged Care Act. We must remember that the government got its aged care reforms through the parliament. Providers have refuted her claims about being unable to act, with Aged Care Australia saying:It is therefore very disappointing to see the Minister for Aged Care highlighting the concerns of a small number of facilities as a political lever to get the Senate to pass new legislation, when she already has the power to act decisively now and is failing to do so.The minister—and the industry recognises this—has the power to ensure that proper standards are maintained in nursing homes and hostel facilities caring for the aged in this country. She has the power, but—like in so many other areas—she has been unable or unwilling to act. This audit report, as I have said, is a timely critique and reminder that the government's aged care reforms—amended under political pressure in 1996-97—are failing to meet the standards set for them by the government. They are failing aged persons in Australia. The system is a shambles, the reforms are a failure and the government must act to start cleaning up the mess that it has created.Question resolved in the affirmative.703217:59:007032O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. I want to make some comments on the in-depth report by the Auditor-General on fraud control in the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I also want to comment more generally on the important role that the Auditor-General plays in public administration in Australia. The report No. 4 of 1999-2000 found that, while the department had generally established a framework to prevent and manage fraud, there had been no quality assurance component incorporated in that framework. The Auditor-General also found that, in a number of investigations, the systematic approach set out by the department had not been followed. He found that there was a risk to achieving successful outcomes from delays in taking action.As a result, the effectiveness of these investigations could have been improved if they had been dealt with more promptly. Mr Barrett also found the department's fraud risk assessment methodology was sound. However, the Auditor-General found that fraud control performance indicators in division and branch plans did not provide the range of indicators necessary for balanced performance assessment in relation to price, quantity and quality. I must say that it is notable that the department agreed with all of the findings and recommendations of the report. This report is a good example of how the Auditor-General and his office are able to provide an independent review of the performance and accountability of government agencies and entities.The Australian National Audit Office has the highly developed skills to enable it to undertake timely and cost-effective performance audits consistent with public sector values. It presents a vital link between these public entities and the parliament and, therefore, the Australian community. I must say that the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Laurie Foley to the position of Assistant Director of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is another example that lends itself to a proper and open investigation by the Auditor-General. The skills that Mr Barrett would bring to such an investigation are essential in this matter. It is essential that they be used to ensure that the matter is properly dealt with.The current plan for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board to have a Mr Stephen Skehill undertake an investigation of the Foley recruitment process and its role in that process is obviously unsatisfactory. The investigation into this matter must be independent. While Mr Skehill is a very skilled and experienced lawyer, the Auditor-General has a wide range of skills and much experience in such investigations. Any inquiry into the Foley appointment must also be open and the resulting report tabled in the parliament.In relation to the Skehill investigation, we have not been given an assurance by the minister, Mr Anderson, that the Skehill report will be tabled. All we know is that he has asked for a copy of the Skehill findings once the investigation has been completed. We have no assurance that the report will be released to the public, as it should be. In contrast, the Auditor-General is required to table his findings and make recommendations to which the agency and the government must respond.Finally, the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Foley to this senior position in CASA are of serious concern to the opposition and many people in the organisation itself as well as to the wider aviation industry. It is in the interests of aviation, in the interests of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and, I would have thought, in the interests of the minister, Mr Anderson, to have a proper and open inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding this appointment. Only then can we get on with the job of building a safer and more efficient aviation sector.Question resolved in the affirmative.70337033The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)10000PON/A10—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 6 of 1999-2000—Audit Activity Report January-June 1999: Summary of outcomes.Bills7033r841Billsr839703318:05:007033Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, I present the committee's advisory report on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 , together with submissions, Hansard record and minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.M56Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNE—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The process of which this report is the result began substantially with the Constitutional Convention held in February last year, a very special event in Australian history, not only in terms of our democratic structures but also in terms of the ongoing debate about our head of state. It and this report were both important steps in engaging the Australian community in an understanding of and debate on their Constitution and important steps in the process of consultation and community engagement.At the outset, I would like to thank all of the committee staff, especially the committee secretary, Claressa Surtees, for their work over the past month or so. Arranging a committee of 18 members for such a process cannot have been an easy task. Between coordinating diaries, desires and preferences, the staff have done an excellent job. I would also place on record my thanks to the chairman of the committee, Mr Bob Charles MP, and my other Senate and House of Representatives colleagues who participated in the committee.We received 122 written submissions from a range of interested individuals and organisations and conducted hearings all over the country—in Adelaide, Brisbane, Broome, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth, Sydney and Townsville. It was the view of many committee members that it was imperative to visit both regional and metropolitan locations to ensure that all who wanted an opportunity to address the committee had that chance, and particularly to give those outside metropolitan Australia an opportunity to express their views with regard to the bills.A range of witnesses gave evidence to the committee, from constitutional lawyers—more and more of those—and academics, both monarchist and republican, to those with less expert, but no less enthusiastic, involvement and interest in the issues. The committee has made a number of recommendations that include changes to the long title of the bill; membership of the Presidential Nominations Committee; the process of nomination; the qualifications, powers, dismissal and term of office of the President; and the education campaign to be conducted prior to the referendum. I wish to briefly address two of those.Firstly, I refer to the issue of the long title of the bill. It is my view that the long title of the bill as recommended by the committee does represent a more accurate wording without making the question unwieldy or misleading. It was important for us to keep in mind that the aim is for the question put to the people to be as informative as possible without being overly complex. However, I note that this afternoon the Prime Minister announced a new wording. I am sure that that proposal will receive the considered attention of all participants in the debate. Hopefully it will address many of the concerns that have been raised in recent days by enthusiasts of change and opponents of change alike and produce some of the balance much sought after by many of those people.Secondly, I refer to the membership of the nominations committee. The committee has recommended that the Prime Minister, in appointing the nominations committee, have regard to, as far as practicable, the diversity of the Australian people. The diversity of the Australian populace is one of the fundamental building blocks of our community. Australians of different ethnicities, genders, ages and backgrounds have contributed enormously to the development of our nation. It is my hope as a republican that all Australians, from a variety of backgrounds, will continue to enhance this development. It is fundamentally important for the President of this nation to be truly representative of the diversity of our people. An appropriate way to ensure this is to ensure a nominations committee which is reflective of this diversity.These recommendations reflect a genuine concern by committee members to ensure that the referendum most accurately reflects the outcome of the Constitutional Convention. I believe it is important that this be maintained. The public was so actively involved in the Constitutional Convention that it would represent a breach of faith to not represent the outcome of that body as far as possible.I commented earlier that this report represents a culmination in a process of community engagement—and, of course, it is not the last word on constitutional change. Another process of engagement must now commence; that is, engaging the community in a debate about the merits of the proposed reforms and the benefits which might be offered through becoming a republic.It is no secret that I will be seeking to vote yes on 6 November. I note that the chairman of the committee, after this long and arduous process, has also put on the record this afternoon in another place a similar commitment. This process of engagement is one that must continue until 6 November. I hope that this report, in its own way, might mark the commencement of a new round of invigorated and enthusiastic debate on the issue which will lead to a positive outcome for the referendum in November.18:10:007034Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also rise to speak on the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. I also start by commending the committee secretariat for the amount of work they have been able to put together and analyse in a very short period of time. The report is a very useful one, coming at a quite critical time in the move towards Australia becoming a republic. This report is a good reflection not only on the capacity of those in the secretariat who were party to it but also, I must say, on all members and senators who were party to this process. So I place on the record my thanks to the chair and all members of the committee for the way they contributed to this particular report. I also thank the 122 or so people who made original submissions as well as those appearing in person before the committee.There were some 14 recommendations from the committee. It is fair to say that, with respect to the majority of those recommendations, if not all of them, the overwhelming majority of members and senators came to the same conclusion. Our task, in essence, was to look at and assess the model which came through last year's Constitutional Convention to see how it was reflected in—and what changes were needed to—the government's legislation to ensure that the spirit and the letter of the Constitutional Convention model were reflected in that legislation.In a sense, this committee has achieved much; it has achieved a refinement of the model. Thirteen of the amendments go to issues that relate to the actual operation of the model proposed by the Constitutional Convention. The 14th recommendation goes to the core issue facing the parliament and the Australian people—and that is the actual referendum question to be put to the people. In that sense, the committee was faced by the Prime Minister's continuing campaign of subterfuge. His personal proposal for what should be the question to be put to the Australian people was found by the committee to not be a fair and accurate reflection of the considerations and deliberations of the Constitutional Convention. In fact, the committee said:The committee considers that the reference in the draft long title to the two-thirds majority of the members of parliament gives an incomplete picture of the essential feature of the nomination process which involves public consultation and a process for bipartisan nomination by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.Essentially, we found that the government's proposed question was one that did not fairly reflect the essence of the new system proposed to the people through the referendum mechanism. The committee felt also that there was the need not only for a new question but also for a degree of fairness to be imparted into this process.It is undisputed that an ever growing majority of Australians want Australia to become a republic. The driving force for this parliament should not be political trickery; it should be to give expression to the will of that increasing majority. I say `increasing' because the polls this morning indicate that some 63 to 64 per cent of those who have a position on whether Australia should become a republic support the model put up by the joint parliamentary committee. That is an all-time high. It is a high which still prevails, despite the attacks of Mr Reith in trying to undermine the move towards a republic and despite the game the Prime Minister is playing in this particular area. Faced with the issue, the committee analysed alternatives extremely extensively and came up with the question which, as I say, the Australian public has endorsed in the polls taken since that proposal was floated in the media and in the public generally.Australians want a fair question, and that is what the committee has come up with. It is fair, and it is fairer than the question that is now being proposed by the government. In the last few hours or so, the government has floated an alternative question to be put to the Australian people at the referendum on 6 November. The differences between that question and the question proposed by the republic advisory committee are two, and they are important. For some reason, the Australian government is not prepared to place the word `Australian' before the word `president' in the proposal put to the Australian people. This process is all about having an Australian president at the end of the process. The fact that the Australian government is not prepared to put the word `Australian' before `president' in the proposal going to the public reflects very badly on the government and is also a further reflection of the trickery that the Prime Minister is prepared to indulge in in order to sabotage the republic push.The other aspect that the government is insisting on putting in the referendum question is the reference to a president `appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament'. This is precisely the wording that the joint parliamentary committee found to be biased. This is precisely the wording which the committee in major part found reflected the unpopular aspect of the process while not fully reflecting the whole process. For that reason, the opposition thinks what we have today is another instance of the Prime Minister's trickery. But it comes as no surprise, because this is the Prime Minister who—by his own admission—does not want Australia to become a republic and who thinks talk of a republic is a waste of time. I drove from Melbourne to Canberra yesterday and, hour after hour for six or seven hours, I heard on the news grabs of the Prime Minister saying, `Whenever I get together with Mark Taylor, we don't talk about the republic. I don't waste time talking about the republic.' It is not a waste of time to talk about the republic. In fact, it is a reflection on the poor standard of commitment that this Prime Minister brings to the job that he thinks cricket is more important than the constitutional structures that he should be responsible for and should be promoting throughout the country.It is a bad example for this country and for the children of this country to have the Prime Minister saying, `Look, let's talk about Shane Warne as a spinner, but don't get serious about what sort of structure we are living under.' And that is precisely what he was saying. It is a bad reflection on him, it diminishes the position of prime minister and it is also a bad example for Australia to have our Prime Minister say that discussion of the Constitution and of the republic is a waste of time. This statement belies the fact that the Prime Minister is a person who has taken every step along the way, through one act of trickery or another, to ensure that this proposal does not get up. He knows full well that for the proposal to have the maximum chance of succeeding, both sides of parliament need to be behind it. He plays a tricky game, saying on the one hand, `I don't have a position,' and on the other hand, `If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'The Prime Minister knows full well that he is subverting the road to Australia becoming a republic. He is doing it, and he knows full well that his colleague Mr Reith is also doing it. We have had enough of Peter Reith's indulgence in this debate. We know that he is no more than a monarchist in drag. We have seen his comments in the past; we have seen his more recent comments. We know that, when it comes to constitutional reform and the Constitution, he pays no respect to the processes and conventions. He would be the sort of person who would take us back to the damaging practices of 1975. For him to come out parading as a republican but proposing that we keep the Queen is something that has been too rich for the Australian public to cop.This has been a useful process because in part it has driven the government to propose a new question for the referendum. But, as I said earlier, this question is also laden with trickery and is incomplete. We believe there should be reference to an Australian president. We also believe referring to a president `appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament' is an unbalanced reflection of the process. In closing my contribution on the tabling of this report, I once again thank the chair and so many members of the government together with my colleagues and Senator Natasha Stott Despoja for the contribution they have made to ensuring that this process is fairer than it was at the start of the committee process.18:19:007036Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will begin where Senator Bolkus left off by commending the participation and contribution of all our colleagues on the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. As Senator Payne pointed out, 18 members on a committee could potentially be quite unwieldy. Those who participated at varying stages throughout the process did so often with a passionate interest in the debate, but we tried to be fairly clear headed as we listened to the evidence provided. We also commend the chairman and the secretariat as well as the many witnesses who appeared before the committee and those people who provided written submissions to the joint select committee.I rise to speak on the report, entitled Advisory report on: Constitutional Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, as the Democrat spokesperson on republican issues and also as the sole member for the Democrats on this large committee. By and large, this report ensures that the legislation to come before this place and to go before the Australian people on 6 November will reflect the outcomes of the Constitutional Convention last year. Australians will have the opportunity to vote to become an Australian republic with a head of state who is chosen from among us for the first time in this nation's history. For more than a year, many of us have read headlines and various polls that have predicted the demise of the referendum in November, predicated on assumptions of apathy within the Australian community on this issue. As part of the joint select committee on this legislation, we heard many submissions from Australians from all over—from regional and remote areas and from towns and urban centres—and the enthusiasm with which many greeted this legislation and the coming referendum gave lie to any reports that the Australian people are simply not interested in the republic issue.Many witnesses who appeared before the committee were supportive of the legislation, although, I acknowledge, many improvements were suggested and many people expressed their support of the move to a republic per se. Like those witnesses, the Australian Democrats support the move to a republic with an Australian head of state and, like a number of witnesses before the committee, we do have some concerns with this legislation which we hope will be addressed.I should acknowledge that the Democrats support—and I have put this in my dissenting report—a majority of recommendations that have come from the committee and, in particular, I commend the committee on recommending that, as per the Constitutional Convention's communique, there is reference given to or attention paid to ensuring diversity is included in the nomination process, that is, ensuring a diversity of views are involved in the nomination process. I certainly commend the unanimous decision made by the committee in relation to the nomination process.But the concerns of the Democrats, as outlined in my minority report, relate principally to the procedure for the dismissal of a President. While the Democrats do recognise the safeguards that are incorporated in this legislation by way of requiring a Prime Minister who has dismissed a President to come before the House of Representatives to explain his or her actions within a 30-day period, the Australian Democrats believe that the protection afforded the President can and should be strengthened. The President of an Australian republic will be a unique figure—a constitutional umpire and symbolic head of state. The importance of such an office cannot be underestimated or, we believe, undermined.The majority of the committee has acknowledged the risks of politically motivated or peremptory dismissal but concluded that public reaction to such dismissal combined with the requirement for House of Representatives ratification would presumably dissuade such action. This may prove to be the case, but the Democrats would prefer that those protections be stipulated and of course readily enforceable. As one witness, Professor Leslie Zines, stated to the committee:After all, the head of state is supposed to be above us all and representing the community and a person who is neutral and not a protagonist and all that sort of thing. If you know anyone who can be dismissed instantly, and it says so in clear language—unlike the cover of the Crown where it is not so obvious—obviously it is going to affect, I think, the way the people see the person.As constitutional umpire and symbolic head of state, the President of an Australian republic requires and deserves proper security of tenure. The Democrats proposal would ensure that he or she would be afforded similar protection to that extended to federal judges under section 72(ii) of the Constitution. A President would be able to be removed only on stated grounds of proven incapacity or misbehaviour and the dismissal would need to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of federal parliament—that is, involving the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. This proposal also addresses our deep concern about the exclusion of the Senate from the dismissal procedure.At the 1998 Constitutional Convention, at which I was a delegate on behalf of the federal Australian Democrats, I moved a series of amendments to provide a role for the Senate in the dismissal process. This proposal was not a new one. The requirement that the dismissal of a President be ratified by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of federal parliament was recommended by the Republic Advisory Committee in 1994 and was actually a feature of the original Keating and Australian Republican Movement models.Our proposal echoed the evidence of a number of witnesses before the committee including Professor Leslie Zines, Professor George Winterton, Sir Zelman Cowan, Harry Evans, Dr John Hirst, Ms Anne Winckel, Ms Linda Kirk, Dr John Uhr, George Williams and Professor Cheryl Saunders. In making these recommendations, the Democrats are very much aware of the divergence from the original Constitutional Convention communique or model but, as Dr John Hirst said in his evidence to the committee:. . . I would guess there would not be 10 members of that convention that would support this dismissal procedure now.The Democrats hope that the concerns of these legal and constitutional experts are taken into account when the legislation comes before this place for debate and of course amendment. Our proposal is to ensure that the head of state under this legislation receives the same protection from politically motivated or peremptory dismissal as that given to federal judges. We appeal to both the government and the opposition to consider such amendments when the legislation comes before us.I would like to refer to two other matters. The first is an issue which has received considerable attention—that is, the long title of the bill, which will form the question on the ballot paper. In considering the evidence before the committee on this issue, the Democrats were keen to ensure that the long title most accurately reflected the constitutional change to be effected by the referendum, and even confirmed as of this morning the Demo crats did believe and do believe that the wording suggested in this report best fulfils the goals of simplicity and accuracy. However, this afternoon I understand that the Prime Minister has come forward with a suggested form of words, and I will be discussing that issue with my colleagues. We will get together shortly to examine the new form of words proposed by the Prime Minister, and that will give us an opportunity to assess its worth. On the one hand, it is a recognition by the Prime Minister that the original wording needed to be changed. But we will assess the worth of his new proposal and comment.The second issue relates to the education campaign to be undertaken by the government in the lead-up to the vote and to be conducted by the yes and the no committees. Evidence was received from witnesses around the nation on the complexity of the issues to be voted on and the difficulties, in particular, faced by regional or rural communities in accessing information about the campaign. The challenge facing the government and the two committees is to ensure that all Australians are given access to the relevant information on these issues well prior to referendum day so that they will have an informed vote.My personal commitment to Australia becoming a republic is well known. As a committed republican and member of the yes committee, I look forward to 6 November and what I hope will be a vote by Australians for a system of government which will launch our second centenary of Federation as a truly independent and mature nation. I also look forward to a second Constitutional Convention to consider broader issues of constitutional reform, something that the Australian Democrats have long expressed a commitment to.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:007038Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Before dinner we were debating the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. As a member of that committee, I was very much surprised one night to turn the television on and hear that there was a unanimous report that the question be changed. I had spoken to the committee that day and advised them that I sought the right to put in a minority report. In fact, the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum produced five reports on the republic—the majority report and four dissenting reports, including my own. Any impartial observer would have to consider that the abundance of dissent on the proposed constitutional change does not augur well for the success of the referendum on 6 November.I was given five minutes to speak. I think I can extend that a bit, but I have to confine my remarks. I emphasise that the committee was in no way united in proposing a different referendum question on the republic. Two of the dissenting reports representing three committee members opposed the majority's recommendation on the question to be put to the people. In some ways the Senate debating this referendum question at the moment will be bypassed by a decision by the cabinet and by the National and Liberal party rooms who have taken into consideration the views of the republicans and the views of other people such as the McGarvieists and all those people who are cobbled together to form the republican movement.The Prime Minister has brought forward a question to ask the Australian people. The question is that the people of Australia are going to vote on an act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. I see that as being absolutely fair. The Prime Minister has decided to listen to the other side of the debate and put to the people a question that they believe is fairer and describes the vote in a certain way.It is no good telling the people an untruth. If people vote for a republic they are going to get a republic with a head of state that two-thirds of parliamentarians will elect. It is no good trying to hide that. It is no good trying to disguise it. It is a fact of life. That is what the Constitutional Convention came up with when there were three warring factions of the republican sector. There were the McGarvieists, the Turnbullists and then there were those for a publicly elected President. The question that was proposed by the three sectors and supported by the Constitutional Convention was very clear: if you want a republic you accept that two-thirds of the parliament will elect the President.Tonight I heard Senator Bolkus describing the Prime Minister as unfair. I cannot think of anything fairer than what the Prime Minister has done. He has accepted the question and amalgamated the question to cover the proponents of the republic and the proponents against a republic. It is no good going out there and saying that the Prime Minister is unreasonable. The Prime Minister has a position, as does Senator Bolkus, as do I. Those propositions have been recognised in the question, but do not attack the Prime Minister or anyone else who does not support a change to a republic, because the question is honest, it is frank and it is accurate.As Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate, I support the existing question. I support the government's position to alter the question to pick up both sides of the debate. I think it is a defining characteristic of the constitutional change being proposed. It goes to the heart of what the delegates at the Constitutional Convention decided to put to the Australian people. It describes what kind of a republic Australians are going to get. Not to have in the question the fact that the President will be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament is not telling the people the accurate way that a President will be elected. I think it would be plainly dishonest not to include that in the question. (Extension of time granted)As I say in my report, describing the republic model as one which replaces the Queen and the Governor-General with a President is like describing your car as having four wheels. We all know a car has four wheels and we all know that a republic does not have a Queen and it does not have a Governor- General. If you do not include that part of the question, it tells you very little about the republic.The committee's majority recommendation of the wording of the referendum tells you very little about the nature of the republic. Many Australians hold strong views about methods of selecting a President, and they have the democratic right to know exactly what they are voting for or what they are voting against. As legislators, it is our duty to ensure that the question faithfully represents the nature of the proposed constitutional changes.I would like briefly to mention one other aspect—that is, membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. Australia would not automatically continue as a member of the Commonwealth, and any other Commonwealth country could veto our readmission.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Garbage! What a red herring! Why don't you tell the truth?YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I am going to tell the truth. As a matter of fact, I am going to seek leave to table the document. The Secretary-General must gain the concurrence of every Commonwealth country to readmit Australia. While this may be a formality, it is not automatic, a point which is not picked up in the majority report. I seek leave to table correspondence between Professor David Flint from Australia for a Constitutional Monarchy and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations on this matter.Leave granted.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I thank the Senate for its indulgence.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees7040704010000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations in membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Troeth)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Finance and Public Administration References Committee— Appointed: Senator Hutchins Discharged: Senator Conroy Participating member: Senator ConroyForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator GibbsLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Appointed: Senator Greig Discharged: Senator Stott Despoja Participating member: Senator Stott DespojaLegal and Constitutional References Committee— Appointed: Senators Greig and Ludwig Discharged: Senators Hutchins and Stott Despoja Participating member: Senator Stott DespojaNative Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed: Senator McLucasPublications—Standing Committee— Appointed: Senators McLucas and Ludwig Discharged: Senators Sherry and CrossinRegulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee— Appointed: Senators McLucas and Ludwig Discharged: Senators Gibbs and HutchinsRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Appointed: Senator Ferris Discharged: Senator Calvert Participating members: Senators Calvert and HutchinsRural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Appointed: Senator Ferris Discharged: Senator Calvert Participating members: Senators Calvert and HutchinsSenators' Interests—Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator McLucas Discharged: Senator HutchinsTreaties—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator Ludwig.Bills7040Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1999-2000 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1999-2000 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1999-2000 NRS Levy Imposition Amendment Bill 1998 Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998 Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 1998 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Telstra (Further Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1999 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Australian Business Number Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (End of Sales Tax) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Personal Income Tax Cuts) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Closely Held Trusts) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 1) 1999 A New Tax System (Ultimate Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) Bill (No. 2) 1999 A New Tax System (Aged Care Compensation Measures Legislation Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Indirect Tax Administration) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Income Tax Laws Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amendment) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 2) 1999 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1998 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax and Luxury Car Tax Transition) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Customs) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—Excise) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax Imposition—General) Bill 1999 Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999 Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Bill 1999 Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1999 Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisation of Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 1999 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Amendment Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999 Excise Tariff Amendment (Aviation Fuel Revenues) Bill 1999 Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Bills7042r794Billsr8347042Bills received from the House of Representatives.19:41:007042Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have 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.704219:42:007042Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table the revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Statute Stocktake Bill 1999 and the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—STATUTE STOCKTAKE BILL 1999This bill continues the "statute stocktake" foreshadowed in the Government's Law and Justice Policy and begun with the Statute Law Revision Act 1996.The Government recognises that the Parliament, as the primary law-maker, must bear a direct responsibility for maintenance and repair of Commonwealth statute law.The past 25 years have seen a dramatic increase in the volume, complexity and reach of Commonwealth law. Legislation impacts much more directly and significantly on all aspects of daily life. Whether it is family law, social security assistance, business regulation, environmental laws or taxation, laws passed by the federal parliament affect the community at a business, social and personal level.Indeed, today the expectation is that when a new issue arises within a Commonwealth head of power the Parliament will step in to pass legislation to cover the field and reduce uncertainty.Not surprisingly, there are now over 1300 Commonwealth acts on the statute book. Parliament cannot simply pass more and more legislation without re-examining our existing laws on a regular and ongoing basis to assess their suitability and continuing necessity.As the first stage of the statute stocktake, I wrote to portfolio ministers in 1997, asking them to identify legislation which was no longer required and which could therefore be repealed.The stocktake has revealed many redundant acts still on the statute book.This bill will repeal 96 principal or stand-alone acts that are still on the statute book despite having no further operation.This will reduce the total number of substantive acts on the statute book by over 7 per cent.The bill also includes provisions to make consequential amendments and transitional and saving provisions relating to the repeals.The consequential amendments will remove references to the repealed acts and ensure that other acts can continue to operate properly despite those repeals.The transitional and saving provisions will ensure that the repeals do not have any adverse effects on existing rights. This bill repeals redundant laws as recommended by the Small Business Deregulation Task Force. It is an important contribution to the government's policy of reviewing and repairing the statute book.Although of itself an important exercise, this is but the first stage of the stocktake process. Ministers and their departments have also been asked to identify legislation for repair. Further work will continue to be undertaken to give effect to the Coalition's ongoing commitment to clean up our laws.The repair of legislation is politically a low profile task which does not attract much attention from the media. Some might see it as a thankless task. It requires hard work, dedication and commitment. The Coalition is doing what Labor failed to do in Government.The winners, however, are all Australians. Whether it is small business taking out a franchise, a public company developing a major infrastructure proposal, an aboriginal receiving Abstudy assistance to go to university or a family qualifying for the savings rebate, we all benefit from clearer more accessible laws.This bill, together with the further changes the Coalition Government has initiated, reflects our commitment to reduce the volume of legislation, minimise the complexity of Commonwealth law and ensure that any new legislation takes into account the impact it will have on our citizens.The bill is expected to have no financial impact on the Commonwealth.LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 amends a number of acts coming within the Attorney-General's portfolio. It also amends one act within the responsibility of the Treasurer and one act within the responsibility of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. The bill contains amendments of a minor policy nature, makes minor technical amendments to existing legislation and repeals a spent provision.The amendments are explained in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the bill. The amendments will not have any significant financial impact.Schedule 1 to the bill will amend Part V of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act). Part V of the AAT Act provides for the establishment and role of the Administrative Review Council (the ARC). The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee produced a `Report on the Role and Function of the Administrative Review Council' in June 1997. The Com mittee made 11 recommendations, of which the Government has accepted 10. The Committee's recommendations were designed to strengthen the role and functions of the ARC. A copy of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations, indicating the Government's implementation strategy, was tabled in the Senate on 1 April 1998. The amendments contained in the bill will complete the Government's implementation of the Committee's recommendations.The amendments to the Australian Law Reform Commission (Repeal, Transitional and Miscellaneous) Act 1996 will update certain references in, and provide for the commencement of, Schedule 1 to the act.The bill will amend the Australian Protective Service Act 1987 to allow the Director of the Protective Service to lawfully charge for services rendered to non-Commonwealth persons and bodies. The amendment will require any such charge to be reasonably related to the costs of providing the services in question.The bill will amend the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 1996 and the Corporate Law Reform Act 1992 to correct drafting errors.The bill will make a number of amendments to the Evidence Act 1995. Some of the amendments will extend the operation of the Evidence Act to proceedings in all Australian courts in relation to certain forms, applications, claims, returns and other similar documents received by Commonwealth departments and agencies. The amendments will apply the rules in the Evidence Act on the adducing of evidence to how evidence of such documents is given in proceedings in a State or Northern Territory court. Other amendments will give effect to regulations made or amended after the commencement of the Evidence Act giving evidentiary effect to a certificate or other document, accommodate the taking of evidence by affidavit, and make minor drafting corrections to the act.The bill will make a number of amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. One amendment will allow additional judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, as well as resident judges, to be included on the Full Court of the Federal Court. Another amendment will provide that the Registrar of the Federal Court may authorise officers or employees of the Court to administer oaths and affidavits for the purposes of the Court. The bill will also insert into the act a standard regulation making power. This amendment will ensure that regulations can be validly made increasing the limit in relation to which the Court may enter contracts, to a `prescribed higher amount' where necessary. The bill will insert a similar regulation making power into the High Court of Australia Act 1979 for the same purpose.The bill will amend the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 to include service as a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in the definition of `prior judicial service'. The amendment will put ACT judges in the same position as judges of the Northern Territory and State Supreme Courts.The bill will make a number of amendments to the Judiciary Act 1903.One of the amendments will expressly exclude the conferral of criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court, except where that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court by some other Commonwealth statute. This will prevent a litigant from seeking to use the provision to bring a private prosecution before the Federal Court, or to include a criminal matter as an element of a civil case in which the Federal Court has jurisdiction. Other amendments will repeal a spent provision and provide that the restriction contained in the act, that a superior court is not invested with federal jurisdiction over a summary offence against the Commonwealth, is confined to the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction by courts of summary jurisdiction.The bill will amend the Jury Exemption Act 1965 to update certain references in the Schedule.The bill will make amendments to the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1997 and the Marriage Act 1961 to correct minor drafting errors.The bill will amend the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to correct a previous misdescription of amendments intended to have been made by the act, and to correct a technical anomaly.AUSTRALIAN SPORTS COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1999Purpose of the BillThis bill amends the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989.The proposed amendments provide for an exchange of information between the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Customs Service in relation to the importation, or attempted importation, into Australia, of substances that enhance sporting performance, or substances that can be used to conceal the use of performance enhancing drugs.This information will be used by these agencies, within stringent safeguards, to contribute to the pursuit of a sporting environment free from the unsanctioned use of performance enhancing drugs or doping methods. BackgroundThe Australian Sports Commission Act was enacted in 1989. Since that time, the incidence of the use of drugs to improve sporting achievement has increased significantly. So too has the use of substances which will conceal their presence in samples taken as part of a drug testing regime.Australia owes it to its athletes to take every possible step to make it clear that we intend to pursue the principles of `fair play' which are so firmly entrenched in the Australian culture. We must make clear our intention that Australia will take action against any athlete who doesn't play by the rules, who relies on drugs to improve their sporting performance—in other words, who cheats.Our athletes have the right to expect that of us.The Commission has an obvious role to play in this respect. It is important that the Commission be provided with the ability to maintain vigilance on our athletes' behalf. The Commission must have the ability to keep in step with the contemporary environment. It must be empowered to take action where it is clear that breaches of anti-doping policies are likely to have occurred.Major Features of the BillThe bill puts in place a mechanism to enable Customs to inform the Commission about the importation, or the attempted importation, by a competitor, or for the use of one or more competitors, of performance enhancing drugs, and substances which can conceal the use of those drugs.However, the information cannot be passed on by Customs unless the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that a number of requirements set down in the bill have been met.The bill also contains a provision for the Executive Director of the Commission to inform the relevant national or international sporting organisation about a likely breach of an anti-doping policy. It will allow the Commission to pass information to those sporting organisations which have an anti-doping policy and which are involved in the organisation of national or international competitions, or the preparation of competitors for those competitions. This provision will cover organisations such as the State and Territory sports agencies and academies. Again, the bill sets down the strict circumstances under which the information can be passed on, and the purpose for which it can be used.The bill also contains provision for the Commission to pass limited information to Customs to assist in identifying persons who may be importing sports substances for use by one or more competitors, but again sets down the purposes for which the information can be used, and the circumstances under which it can be passed. To ensure that information is not improperly disclosed, there is provision in the bill for all Commission officials to be subject to section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 which imposes secrecy obligations on Commonwealth Officers.In providing for the exchange of information between Customs and the Commission, these amendments take care to also provide for the security of that information, and the rights of competitors in relation to its use.Financial Impact StatementThe Commission's budget will absorb any costs associated with the additional administrative action involved in this initiative.ConclusionI am confident that most Australians will want to ensure that the Australian sporting ethos based on honesty, fair play, excellence, and opportunity for all, is preserved for future generations of Australian sports people. This bill will enable the Commission to contribute towards the realisation of those values.It will also clearly signal to the international sporting community that Australia will not tolerate or condone the use of performance enhancing drugs. This is particularly important as we approach the Sydney 2000 Games.I must also take this opportunity to stress that this bill is only one expression of the Government's commitment to drug free sport. The Government recently announced Australia's Anti-drugs in Sport Strategy 1999-2000 and Beyond—Tough on Drugs in Sport . This Strategy pulls together a suite of anti-doping measures which together form a comprehensive and co-ordinated anti-doping regime.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills7045Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the following bills without amendment: Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendment made by the Senate to the following bill: Export Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 Bills7045r6467045Debate resumed from 15 February, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time.19:43:007045Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Finally, at 17 minutes to eight on 9 August 1999, we get to debate the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 —a most significant occurrence. It is significant because this bill, on which we are commencing the second reading debate this evening, was first put on the Notice Paper at the beginning of this year. Indeed, late last year, the members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Legislation Committee were told that this legislation was so vital and so important that it needed to be debated and passed within the first week or two of this year's sittings. Because of that urgency, the committee had to consider the legislation and report by the first week of the 1999 sittings—that is, the sittings that commenced in February this year.So the committee dutifully did that, notwithstanding the fact that it meant that the committee's deliberations had to be done over the Christmas-New Year period and that we had to truncate the public hearings to ensure that we could meet the timetable set by the government and by the Senate and notwithstanding that this was a piece of legislation that had extremely wide interest right across the community, particularly in regard to those areas where the logging of forests takes place.We met the timetable set by the government and we brought our report in. There was, of course, a majority report by the government which said the bill should be passed unamended. There was a minority report by the Labor opposition which indicated that there should be some significant amendments made to the legislation. No doubt we will get on to those in the committee stage of the debate this week. There were also reports from the Democrats and the Greens.That was back in February that we were set to debate this legislation. Since then, despite the legislation being on the program virtually every week and despite the fact that I have had this speech prepared and in the top drawer, what has happened? The government, at every opportunity that they had to bring this bill on, baulked. They refused to bring it on for debate, notwithstanding the importance of this legislation to the completion of the RFA process whereby all regional forest agreements are due to be completed by the end of this year.Why has the government procrastinated and delayed? We have seen clearly the evidence, and it has been because of the incompetence of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in this government, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey. The minister huffs and puffs and has spent most of this year roaming around the countryside making outrageous threats against state governments, against the ALP and against the Senate. Indeed, we have again recently seen the abuse that he hurls and the threats he has made against his own coalition colleagues in the state of Western Australia.Let me quote what Minister Tuckey has said recently, in the last couple of days. This was an interview that was replayed on PM after the introduction by Mr Mark Colvin, the presenter, who said:Australia is at war this evening, though not a shot has been fired. It's a civil war between Federal and State Governments, and the declaration came from the Federal Forests Minister, Wilson Tuckey.Mr Tuckey was quoted as saying:I got preliminary advice from other sources and, in fact, I've spent three hours on the phone. I got up at 3 o'clock in the morning in Helsinki to talk to people at the appropriate time here, and as I told them, if you proceed with this I quoted some words from Phantom of the Opera : `There will be war between us'. And that's where I stand on it.That is what he said in respect of the decision taken by the Western Australian government.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Ironbar.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—This is Ironbar Tuckey; this is Chainsaw Tuckey. That is what he said in regard to Premier Court and his government when they recently made a decision to revise the RFA that they had entered into with Minister Tuckey to, in effect, phase out logging in certain old-growth native forests by the year 2003. But, of course, not everybody takes Minister Tuckey's threats and outbursts seriously. We have learned to live with them on this side of the chamber because we know that it is all bluff and bluster and hollow threats, notwithstanding some form, which I will not go into, from the past. Even the Western Australian government are now learning that they cannot always take Wilson Tuckey's outbursts and threats seriously because, on the same PM program last Friday, 6 August, the response from the state Western Australian Minister for the Environment, Cheryl Edwardes, to Mr Tuckey was:Well I think perhaps that is just Mr Tuckey talking, and we are really not interested in a fight with the government. The message we got very clearly from the local councils and the community yesterday was a positive one. They want proactive action in reinforcing and attracting investment to those communities for alternative employment opportunities and that is what we are about.The interviewer, Joe Pritchard, asked:Wilson Tuckey has said this is war between the federal leaders and the state leaders. Is it war?Cheryl Edwardes replied:Well we are not interested in a fight with the government, the federal government. We are more interested in getting on and helping those south-west communities.Joe Pritchard:Isn't Mr Tuckey being unhelpful by stirring up so much emotion?Cheryl Edwardes:Oh well, look, I think it is just Mr Tuckey talking.We have a major problem developing in the forest debate in this country, and it is one that we on the opposition side are sad to see occur. We all know, irrespective of our particular political point of view, that the forest debate has been a heated debate for many years.It is not an easy issue to resolve. Indeed, when we were in government we saw, assembled around this parliament, the trucks of the loggers blockading this parliament. We have seen time and again over the years this debate degenerate into slanging matches between representatives of industry, no doubt properly concerned about the future of their industry and the jobs of their employees, and the equally strong views held on the environmentalist side. It has never been an easy debate to try to stand in the middle of and resolve, but when we were in government we, with the cooperation of all the states, established a process for the development of regional forest agreements.Unfortunately, with the current federal minister, who has now been in that position since October last year—pretty close to 12 months in that portfolio—what have we seen? We have seen the debate become divisive again. It has even got to the extent that it is divisive within his own party. We have declarations of war between a Liberal federal minister and a Liberal Premier and a Liberal government in Western Australia. That is the level that the debate has degenerated to.And what have we seen in terms of results in that period? Not one RFA finalised since this minister has been in the position, except for the RFA that was negotiated in Western Australia and has since been revised by the Western Australian government itself. Yet this minister was put in charge of this portfolio specifically to get this process completed within the time frame set down: that is, by the end of this year.That is the background against which this legislation now comes before the Senate. This is legislation that this minister has said, if it is amended by the Senate, he would prefer to withdraw rather than accept any amendments to it—once again, another threat. The problem is that, whether or not one regards Mr Tuckey's performance as being over the top, or whether he thinks he is funny and witty or making threats that he can carry out, or whether other people think they are threats that are hollow or that he is merely all bluff and bluster and talk, at the end of the day it does not really matter. What matters is that the proper process for negotiating RFAs is being undermined by the actions of an irresponsible, out of control minister, and the sooner the Prime Minister does something about it and him, the better.I want to turn to the legislation and specifically to the proposals that the opposition will be bringing before the chamber in the committee stage. As we have said in our report of the Senate committee, the opposition supports the RFA process. That is a process that was developed under the previous Labor government and one which can deliver satisfactory, balanced outcomes for the competing interests within this industry. The process, of course, has its genesis in the National Forests Policy statement, and there are 11 goals of the National Forests Policy statement. I want to quote firstly the introductory paragraph, because it is important to bear it in mind when considering this legislation. This is what the National Forests Policy statement said:The Governments agree that, to achieve their vision for the forest estate and to ensure that the community obtains a balanced returned from all forest uses, eleven broad national goals must be pursued. These goals should be pursued within a regionally based planning framework that integrates environmental and commercial objectives so that, as far as possible, provision is made for all forest values. The eleven broad national goals are as follows:—and they are set out under the headings `Conservation', `Wood production and industry development', `Integrated and coordinated decision making and management', `Private native forests', `Plantations', `Water supply and catchment management', `Tourism and other economic and social opportunities', `Employment, workforce education and training', `Public awareness, education and involvement', `Research and development' and, finally, `International responsibilities'.The first two of those goals, particularly conservation and wood production and industry development, are particularly critical. It is the RFA process which seeks to achieve the balance between, on the one hand, conservation and, on the other hand, wood production and industry development. The RFA process is about achieving these goals through proper scientific analysis and through assessment and negotiation with all the relevant stakeholders.The problem, of course, is that some participants in the debate do not really believe in finding a balanced outcome between conservation on the one hand and resource security on the other. We reject that extreme position, whether it comes from those whom Senator Brown represents—and he has stood in this chamber and has attacked the position of the Labor Party, claiming that it is a sell-out to the woodchip companies, a claim which is totally erroneous and grossly unfair—or whether it comes from the other side, from Minister Wilson Tuckey, who is unashamedly pro-logging to the point of irresponsibility.For instance, Minister Wilson Tuckey is on record as claiming that the commitment to protecting 60 per cent of old-growth forests under the JANIS criteria was only ever a target: it was never a firm commitment and was not something that he saw really ever had to be achieved. I know that he said that, because I heard him say it at the ABARE Outlook conference earlier this year in Canberra. Yet, if you look at the JANIS criteria, they clearly spell out that at least 60 per cent of old-growth forests will be protected—and, indeed, that figure can be expected to increase as plantations are developed into the future.I have already referred earlier to the minister's attacks and criticisms of the states, such as the attacks he has made upon the New South Wales state government and the agreements they have negotiated on the North Coast forests, and his threats to withhold funding from the states—particularly from the state of New South Wales, because it happened to be a Labor state and he happens not really to agree with the politics of the Labor government. Consequently, not long before the state election, he was threatening to withhold the funding for the properly negotiated agreements in that state.Of course, what happened? His threats were rejected. Indeed, even his own people and supporters within the coalition have rejected his views in that state, and the agreements reached between the New South Wales government and the industry have been strongly supported across the political spectrum.In turning specifically to the amendments that the Labor Party will be seeking to move in the committee stage—we will be making some extensive comments in regard to them at that point in time—I particularly want to make some brief comments about some of the key amendments. We propose to insert an objects clause. That clause will reflect the provisions of the national forest policy statement. We propose to insert a provision whereby a wood and paper industry council would be established under legislation. This was a commitment made by and included within the wood and paper industry strategy and, indeed, was one which was carried on until this government came into office after the 1996 election and John Moore abolished the council.But the most important amendment—which will no doubt be the subject of debate in the chamber—is our proposal whereby regional forest agreements would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny by the federal parliament before they are given the final approval. We propose a system whereby RFAs, once in a draft proposal form, would be tabled in the parliament by the minister. A period of 15 sitting days would then be available during which a resolution disapproving of an RFA may be passed. If no such resolution is passed within the specified time, then the RFA would become operative.There has been a lot of misinformation and scaremongering about this proposal. I want to make it very clear why we put it forward. Firstly, whilst the process of negotiating RFAs is the correct one, it is clear that not all of the stakeholders come to that process with clean hands and with a desire to bring about a balanced solution in accordance with the objectives of the national forest policy statement. You do not need any further proof of that than seeing what is happening in this debate in Western Australia at the moment. The situation is that an RFA was entered into between the state government and the federal minister. Within a matter of a couple of weeks the state government, because of the public clamouring and outcry, as well as the internal objection within that government to the provisions of that RFA, amended it. And so we have the minister saying that he is not going to accept it. That is a substantial reason for such an RFA to be subject to the final scrutiny of this parliament in an expeditious and timely manner.It is certainly incumbent upon this parliament, when we will be giving future RFAs resource security for the next 20 years and committing in excess of $100 million of taxpayers' funds in industry support and restructuring, to have the final opportunity to scrutinise any RFA negotiated between the executive of the federal government and a state government. (Time expired)20:03:007049Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to make the initial contribution for the Australian Democrats on this piece of legislation, the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , which is a very important piece of legislation dealing with a very crucial issue. I do so as the Democrats' environment spokesperson. The second reading stage of the debate will be closed by my new colleague Senator Brian Greig, who has primary carriage of this bill as the spokesperson on forestry issues.Firstly, I would particularly like to reinforce my agreement to, and support for, Senator Forshaw's comments about the completely farcical committee inquiry process and the totally inadequate time frame that was forced upon the committee to inquire into this piece of legislation. I think it did the Senate's reputation no good at all to have such an important issue dealt with in such a incredibly truncated time frame. As Senator Forshaw highlighted, the great shame was that the committee was forced to go through that process in such a ridiculously fast time frame—I think back in February—and yet here we are, six months later, finally getting around to debating the legislation. I urge the Senate as a whole to consider more wisely in future the timetable it sets for legislation. I think that is a particularly extreme case of a major problem, but it is not an isolated case either. Another aspect of Senator Forshaw's comments that bears agreement is his reflection on the inadequate performance of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey. I think, if anything, he has done more to move this issue in a backwards direction than anything else.This regional forest agreement legislation as it stands risks legitimising, for an extraordinary period with extraordinary protection from review or challenge, the claims of one set of sectional interests to the detriment of other sections of the industry, the government's employment and regional development objectives, Australia's international obligations and the broader interests of the community. It will facilitate the destruction of areas of unique environmental significance, and it will do so permanently and needlessly.The Democrats' particular concerns with the regional forest agreement process as it has occurred and the legislation can be summarised as follows. The RFA process as it has occurred fails to resolve one of the most long running and contentious issues to face the nation. It fails to deliver on jobs for impoverished and vulnerable rural areas. It unfairly discriminates against the plantation industry. It will destroy many areas of native forest, including old-growth areas. It fails to protect Australia's biodiversity, contrary to an international agreement. It discriminates unfairly against other important cultural values and social and economic benefits provided for by native forest areas. It will be mostly controlled by state governments which have vested or financial short-term interests in the outcomes, thereby leading to positions of conflict of interest. It raises constitutional issues and imposes potential legal and financial difficulties on the Commonwealth and the taxpayer. The Democrats argue that this bill legitimates a process which has been unscientific, uneconomic, illogical and immoral. We are totally opposed to this bill.The future of Australia's forests has unfortunately become a contentious and highly divisive issue. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched in the streets, taken part in protests in the forests themselves, written letters or directly participated in public interest or industry organised groups about the issue. There have been blockades and sometimes violent confrontations in forests in several states and even a blockade of federal parliament. Successive governments—both state and federal—have tried a variety of means to satisfy competing interests and Australia's obligations under international treaties. The regional forest agreement process was supposed to bring an end to the divisiveness and conflict.The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiring into the bill—and I attended one of the two brief committee hearings as part of that process and examined many of the submissions—heard allegations that agreements had been reached on highly unscientific grounds in bureaucratic secrecy without equal opportunity for all stakeholders to be represented, that lobbying had changed reserved areas that were supposedly set in stone and that biodiversity and conservation needs had been met with `loggers' scraps and slivers'. Even if only some of these allegations are true, the bill will set such flawed agreements in place for a considerable period and place them far beyond challenge or amendment. It is hard to see how this will reduce conflict over Australia's forests.The motivation behind this bill—which is quite a slim bill—seems to be solely for the Commonwealth to abdicate its environmental responsibilities and legal powers to the states. The bill removes hard fought for community and environmental safeguards, favours the declining sector of the industry at the expense of the growing sector of the industry, and offers selective compensation as a means to put the schemes beyond the reach of further consideration or challenge.The Democrats are concerned that the perception that one interest has achieved an officially sanctioned game, set and match with this legislation will exacerbate rather than resolve community conflict. Indeed, the implied lack of productive outlets for expressing widespread community disquiet over woodchipping operations in old growth forests in particular may mean that protest assumes a more extreme and confrontational aspect than has been the case to date. We only need to look—as Senator Forshaw has alluded in his contribution—to the immense community disquiet in Western Australia over the inadequacy of the process.Speaking as a Queenslander with an RFA that has been under negotiation for some time, it clearly seems to be taking a turn for the worse and there is great concern in terms of where it might be heading. Apart from my concern about where the agreement may end up, I am certainly also concerned about what that may mean in terms of the community protests that it will engender and the increasing community disquiet and confrontation that will occur in Queensland and in south-east Queensland where I am from. I very much hope that we can avoid going down that unnecessary path.Of course, the question of RFAs is so vexed that even Australia's larger political parties have found it difficult to come anywhere near consensus on this issue. The National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have all had public stoushes between branches, state and central bodies on the issue, with brawls sometimes becoming major news. As the legislation comes into the Senate and finally starts being debated, it is quite clear that those brawls are continuing. It will be interesting to view the careful speeches and delicate positioning of individuals who are going to have to justify themselves before their caucus, their states, their factions, their branches and their electorates as this legislation progresses. Of course, the final vote in the chamber is what counts, and it is clear that some would prefer the legislation to be started all over again—or to be thrown out all together—and that others do not agree with particular aspects of RFAs and will be voting against their own judgments.It has also become obvious that many politicians are so confused over the massive amount of sometimes quite emotive information coming from either side and the passionate nature of the issue that they have taken the easy option of believing that you just cannot win on forests, that there is no outcome which will satisfy anybody and that the only way to deal with the dreaded `f' word is to hush it up and weld in legislation that will push the issue aside for many years to come. It was clear from the submissions to the legislative committee that examined the bill that the range of people unhappy with the RFAs will not give up and will keep making this an issue, even if this attempt to lock the forests out of the legislative protection at the federal level does actually pass this chamber.The Democrats predict that the issue will remain a bleeding sore for major parties and individuals in those parties while ever the industry remains unsustainable, while people are not offered meaningful and continuing work and while native forests are logged for woodchips. The RFAs lock in those concerns, so it is logical to assume that the community will continue to be unhappy with their elected and aspiring representatives.The Democrats feel that the only basis for greater community consensus on this issue lies with an open process based on more equal inputs from stakeholders, undistorted scientific and economic assessment and community education. Compensation may well be part of a long-term solution to the vexed question of access to Australian forests. However, it should be focused on assistance to affected communities rather than being—as the RFAs risk implying—a handout to companies, pork barrel for some electorates or a threatened big stick to ward off any community efforts to rearrange or alter agreements.Yet the reason that the regional forest legislation has been put before the Senate is to provide a so-called resolution to forest issues. It is clear that this process has failed that test, and voting for this legislation will continue such conflict in the Australian community. This reason alone—among many others—is sufficient to throw this legislation out.This piece of legislation comes with an explanatory memorandum which contains assertions that in the Democrats' view are simply not correct. I would like to focus on two of them. The first is in the general outline of the explanatory memorandum:RFAs are the central focus of a package of measures designed to implement the National Forest Policy Statement (adopted by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory Governments) in relation to native forests.There are some simple tests to see if this statement is accurate, and I will highlight just a few. The National Forest Policy Statement provides for the development of Australia's plantation industry. Does this bill—and the RFA process that it seeks to legitimise—in any way assist the development of Australia's plantation industry? It does not. The National Forest Policy Statement provides for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. Does the RFA bill or the RFA process guarantee that? It clearly does not. Again, I only need to point to south-east Queensland in my own state where the clearing that has already occurred puts the land there beyond what is already an inadequate and representative reserve system. Yet the industry—and certainly Minister Tuckey—is proposing that significant areas of the already inadequate remnants of native forests be further cleared.The National Forest Policy Statement allows for areas where comprehensive, representative and adequate systems are in place. Approvals for exports of woodchips for periods longer than one year assume the Commonwealth will be able to meet its obligations under section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act. The question is: will the Commonwealth meet those obligations? The answer clearly is no. Clause 5, subsection (3) provides that, for areas under an RFA, section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act must be disregarded. Again under the comprehensive, representative and adequate reserve system a set of nationally agreed criteria—the JANIS criteria—were established. Do the RFAs meet those criteria? Let us have a look at a couple of examples.A benchmark of 15 per cent of the pre-1750 distribution of each forest community was to be protected within conservation reserves, yet this criterion has clearly not been met. Another benchmark is the retention in reserves of at least 60 per cent of existing old growth, increasing up to 100 per cent for rare forest community old growth. Is that criterion met? Again, the answer is no. While on the old growth issue, this bill and the explanatory memorandum and the RFAs claim to be about ecologically sustainable development. It is patently clear that it is not possible to sustainably log old-growth forest. This fact was even recognised by that well-known left-wing, pinko, feral greenie organisation, the Resource Assessment Commission. Just going back to the JANIS criteria, another criterion is the protection of 90 per cent or more, wherever practicable, of high quality wilderness. This is another criterion that is not met.The second falsehood in the explanatory memorandum which needs highlighting will be more fully explored by my colleague Senator Andrew Murray—it deals with financial issues which is a specialty of Senator Murray's—but is worthy of mention here. That is that the RFA has no direct financial implications. It is beyond belief that any responsible government would seek to put out such a statement about a bill before the house of review, which this chamber is, and expect to get away with it.This bill sets up provision for massive compensation payouts to the states with a blank cheque, and the government wants the Senate to sign it—a blank cheque for about 20 years. Putting aside any environmental or social arguments about the RFA process, this simple fact alone should be enough for the Senate to force the government to suspend the legislation until it can absolutely quantify the amount of compensation the public purse may be eligible for in the future.I would like to emphasise briefly the situation facing the forests of south-east Queensland, the area that I represent. The fate of south-east Queensland forests, in part, may be decided by the future of this legislation. As a Democrat I was heavily involved during the last state election in Queensland in the discussions with all parties about what their commitments would be on environmental issues, particularly relating to land clearing, which is a vital issue in Queensland, and the future of the forests. Clearly, the preference decisions of many Democrat voters were quite crucial to the Labor Party eventually winning government by an extremely narrow margin, as everybody knows.I am sure they were influenced in part by the commitments that the ALP made in relation to the future of the native forests. I call on Premier Beattie to stick to his election commitment to move logging out of native forests as a matter of urgency. Queensland forests are already the least protected of any in Australia and yet they contain the highest levels of biodiversity. Fifty-five per cent of native forests in south-east Queensland have been cleared since the middle of last century. In an open letter printed in the Courier-Mail recently a range of individuals and organisations, including the Queensland division of the Australian Democrats, urged Premier Beattie to protect the native forests of south-east Queensland, pointing out such facts that scientific studies have found only 2.7 per cent of native forests in south-east Queensland are clearly identified as old growth.South-east Queensland has the smallest percentage of forests protected in national parks and other reserves of any forested region in Australia. An expanded parks system must protect high quality habitat for forest animals and include all high conservation value forests such as Mapleton, Bellthorpe, the Conondales, Mt Mee, Tewantin and many more. South-east Queensland already has plantations providing 73 per cent of all sawlogs produced in the region. Establishing additional plantations on already cleared land will help Australia meet its obligations in dealing with the greenhouse effect and assist in a speedy transition to plantation timber production.Polling conducted as part of the forest agreement process has indicated that 83 per cent of people in south-east Queensland do not want logging continued in our native forests and yet that is specifically the agenda that Minister Tuckey, in particular, has tried to impose on the negotiation process for the RFA in south-east Queensland. That process had for some time been proceeding in a constructive fashion between timber industry representatives and conservationists, particularly the Rainforest Conservation Society, but it was obviously a process of great concern to Minister Tuckey. He clearly put in a lot of effort to destroy that constructive working relationship and to ensure that protection of Queensland's native forests was not going to be an end outcome on the negotiation.South-east Queensland is an area of approximately 2.7 million hectares and is the home of some of the most biologically rich and unique forests in Australia. Tall eucalypt forests dominated by blackbutt and tallowwood rise above the ridge lines of the great divide and the coastal ranges. Amongst the gullies and ravines there are precious remnants of the once extensive subtropical rainforest that dominated the landscape of south-east Queensland for thousands of years. These forests are of enormous significance to the region's traditional owners. Together with northern New South Wales, these forests include the last global stronghold of subtropical rainforests and contain at least 284 plant and animal species that are found nowhere else on the planet.Once extensive in south-east Queensland, these forests have been fragmented and isolated by repeated unsustainable logging and clearing. The unsustainable activities of the native forest timber industry in south-east Queensland have led to a wood supply crisis. Having decimated the extensive stands of red cedar, hoop and bunya pines, the native forest industry has now nearly exhausted the available sawlog supplies of eucalypt species such as blackbutt.Unsustainable logging and clearing has left a legacy of denuded river valleys and isolated pockets of undisturbed old-growth and wilderness forests. It is a matter of great concern to me and, as I just pointed out, a significant majority of Queenslanders that these forest remnants are now under great threat with the RFA that is being considered at the moment in south-east Queensland. I again urge the state Labor government there to ensure that their pre-election commitments are met.The bill that we have started to debate today is crucial in terms of how it increases the threat to those forests around Australia that are subject to RFAs. In terms of my own region of Queensland, I urge the Senate not to further increase the risk and threat to those valuable forests. I also urge the Senate to explore another route to phasing out logging in old-growth forests as quickly as possible rather than locking in financial protection for woodchippers and loggers at the expense of the very important and fundamental scientific and ecological criteria that were meant to be at the foundation of the RFA process.20:23:007053Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—What can I say? Although I come into this place to make a contribution in regard to this legislation, one would think that I might also be able to say, after so many years of debate on this issue, that we are actually heading somewhere. Who would have thought that, after some 15 years, we would still be heading nowhere and that this particular process would be in just as big a mess—if not a bigger mess—today as it was 15 years ago? In looking at the Regional Forest Agreement legislation and the purpose for which it is intended, we firstly probably have to look at the Regional Forest Agreement process, the processes prior to that that actually brought regional forest agreements about and why those processes were put in place.We know that the forestry debate raged for many years in this country and led to a process being introduced by the Commonwealth government known as the National Forest Policy Statement, which was the forerunner and mechanism through which Regional Forest Agreements would be developed. Part of that process, of course, was that we would see an end to the conflict in the forests and have an agreed process for the assessment of forests and ecosystems that were worthy of protection and, indeed, warranted protection, as necessary for the wellbeing of this country and its forests in the longer term and, hopefully, forever. Secondly, that process was to provide some surety and security for the people involved in the commercial aspect of forestry. We started off, I think, with very good will and intent but, as I said, here we are now debating resource security legislation and I have to say that, as a process, it has succeeded in doing neither of the things that I just mentioned.It has failed to determine the environmental debate in regard to what forests shall be available, which shall not be available and which shall be protected. More importantly—particularly from my point of view—I think the Regional Forest Agreements that were supposed to provide security for workers in this industry are not going to give that security. Indeed, where Regional Forest Agreements exist today, those workers do not have security—not one little bit of security. I suppose that we have provided some security for some of the major companies involved in the industry, particularly for the export woodchippers. We have provided circumstances where they can enter into what are known as `wood supply agreements' that can last for many years, but what have we done for workers? What is happening to the workers and contractors that those companies used to front the public profile and run the argument and the case for security for this industry? Most of them are losing their jobs.Is the RFA system creating new jobs? Is it causing new investment in the industry? One has to say no, not really; it is not doing that. I know that in my state forestry is such an important industry from a commercial point of view. It is the second largest manufacturing employing industry in this state. It should be the largest, but it is not. It will not ever become that until such time as governments—and I do not care of what political persuasion—are actually prepared to take up the issue and deal with this on the basis that it ought to be dealt with.Head west, and the Western Australia government signed a Regional Forest Agreement with the Commonwealth that was supposedly run through all the scientific processes to determine which forests would be preserved and conserved and which would not, so that the people within the industry—the workers and contractors; not the companies—would be able to at least have some idea of what the future might hold for them. But no—what does Mr Court do? He reverts to the old political game: forests and old-growth forests are a political issue. The green Liberals say that we must preserve more of the forests, so we throw out the Regional Forest Agreement, which is supposed to be based on sound scientific knowledge. I am not going to purport to be an expert in that respect, but that was the name of the game. They were the processes put in place and agreed to, and yet they get ratted on.There is not a Regional Forest Agreement in this country, either existing or proposed, that is going to deliver any security to workers in this industry. That is a shame because they are the ones whom we ought to have some feeling for. Of course, we must take account of the very important environmental issues that are involved with making decisions about which forests we are going to make available for commercial use. It is important that we make decisions based on sound science but also take account of the future of the forests of this country. What I cannot stand, and never will be able to stand, is the wanton waste that I see going on around this country in the commercial use of these forests.As a nation, we ought to know that we have such great opportunities, particularly within the hardwood industry. We know that nations to our north and north-east have placed their hardwood forests under extreme pressure. Indeed, some of them have been virtually wiped out. We know that, in Papua New Guinea, the World Bank and the IMF have instructed the government that it has to change its practice with regard to its forests. Anyone who has been there would know. You can go through all of the Pacific nations and find the same problem. Although a small timber supplier in world terms, we at least had an opportunity to take some steps forward in this process. But what have we done? We have stuffed around with this issue for so long, vacillated and booted the political forestry football to and fro, that people are fundamentally fed up with the issue.My prime concern has always been the workers in the industry and the opportunities that exist for states and this nation to proceed to have a better forest industry. I always thought governments ought to have played a positive role in industry development. We saw some aspects of that in the early days with regard to some industry plans that were developed by the former Labor government. In respect of forestry, I have to say, we did not do all that well. In my view, we used it wrongly as a political football for many years. We finally started to head in the right direction with regard to putting in place a process that was supposed to deliver outcomes—and I do not like to say this—for both views in respect of forests. As I said, it has failed, and it is going to continue to fail until such time as premiers, prime ministers and ministers responsible are able to put in place a process that will stick.I have pursued the issue of forestry for a long time. Indeed, I have written to senators in this place from time to time about forestry related issues. As I said, I just cannot understand how we cannot get this right. It is not as though it is difficult. It just needs a little bit of initiative and willpower and some proactive efforts on the part of government. You can create a lot of jobs in this industry—and I speak from my own state's point of view more than any other because that is the state that I have the most experience with. We have recently had a review of segregation and utilisation practices in my state, and I am amazed at the fact that, despite the limited capacity of the reviewer and the fact that it was run at a time when forestry operations were basically at a standstill, that person developed a report that said that there were significant things wrong. We have had an industry growth plan proposed by the state authority, the Forestry Corporation of Tasmania.By way of example, that industry growth plan proposed a certain number of things in terms of industry development, but primarily it proposed three laminated hardwood veneer lumber plants. Of course, people say, `That sounds like a reasonable idea.' Yes, it does, except that there is really not much market for hardwood LVL. Of course, if you ask any of the major consulting firms—that is, those that have any global experience—they will tell you that there is not a market because of the softwood competition and the fact that the market essentially requires softwood LVL. They will also advise you that to produce a new product and then put it into the marketplace could take as long as 10 years.Of course, we have another aspect to the whole issue with regard to export woodchips. I listened to Senator Bartlett saying, `We want to stop the export of woodchips.' I do not disagree with that in respect of old-growth forests, but I say to Senator Bartlett, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it is highly likely that those people exporting old-growth hardwood woodchips will stop themselves from that practice in terms of old-growth forests before we ever have any capacity at a governmental level, either state or federal, to come to grips with the issue and how the problem should be addressed. The market for paper and the paper manufacturers of the world will demand, and indeed are demanding, that the fibre that is supplied to them be whiter and younger. I would suggest that within the next three years we will see a self-declared end to the exporting of old-growth hardwood woodchips.With regard to this bill, the opposition has proposed some amendments, one of which I have had a fair bit to do with—that is, the one going to a wood and paper industry council being established. The simple reason for my wanting that put into this legislation is this: regional forest agreements have no real review mechanism. There is a five-yearly review—not annual, but five-yearly—but that will be conducted by the participants to the agreement and primarily by the state authority.What are the mechanisms for us as a parliament to make an assessment of the outcomes? How do we measure whether or not the commitments given by the state and the RFA are being delivered? We cannot. If a state does not deliver on its commitments, there is no process by which the parliament can debate the issues. In fact, once an RFA is signed, a state, for all intents and purposes, can cut down all of the trees available in its commercial forest area and ship them out as logs—and there is nothing we can do about it. At least if we have in this process a wood and paper industry council, set up as proposed by the opposition, it will provide for one small mechanism whereby some people representing workers will be able to be in there arguing the case for greater industry development.I notice that the government has proposed a late amendment that says it will `set up a forest products advisory council' and that it will be `constituted in accordance with the regulations'. Of course, the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters `(a) required or permitted by this act to be prescribed or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed' et cetera. With regard to the establishment of that council, it `provides for the establishment of a council to be known as the forest products advisory council' and that `functions of the council in relation to the forest and wood sector are to be prescribed by regulations' and `the council is to be constituted in accordance with the regulations'.We do not know what the regulations are. We do not even know whether workers will be represented on the council. On the record of the government, I have to say this: prior to the last election, you people gave a commitment to adhere to the national forest policy process, to adhere to the regional forest agreement process—and that included the establishment of a wood and paper industry council. It included a constitution for that council and, indeed, a membership list for that council.But the government did not adhere to that; it set up a thing not dissimilar to what it is proposing to set up again. That particular forum established by the government I think met only twice. You only have to see the circumstances with which we are now confronted to understand the worth of that forum—because we have gone nowhere. I have to say that I would have expected more; indeed, the government members on the committee that dealt with this legislation—and I do not want to misrepresent them—certainly agreed that we did not want to have another forum that was of no value.That is why it is of fundamental importance that the amendment for the establishment of a wood and paper industry council be incorporated into this legislation and that there be a requirement at least that it then be included in regional forest agreements, both those already in existence and those yet to come. That will be the only way that workers and contractors, people who have bought plant and equipment in this industry, will have some hope of getting some equity into the process for themselves. That is what this was intended to do. I do not think anybody intended ever to give security to export woodchip companies. I think both Labor when last in government and the current government said that on many occasions. In fact, I can remember the current Prime Minister accusing the former Prime Minister of being the king woodchipper. I know who is king of the woodchips, and it is certainly not Paul Keating. It is the Prime Minister, John Howard, who is king of the woodchips.The existing minister for forests, try as he might, has not led this debate to where it ought to be going. I just hope that one day a government might be able to do that; I do not think this one will, and I am not quite sure whether we would.20:43:007056Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Once again I would like to commend Senator Murphy on his contribution. He comes at this debate from a different angle and certainly with differently weighted priorities from me. But his concern for the workers in this industry underlines everything he says, and his analysis of the failure of this industry to deliver when it comes to average Australians is absolutely spot-on.If we take today as an average day of logging activities taking place in Australian native forests, 600 to 700 log trucks have taken logs out of this nation's native forests to woodchip mills. The vast majority, 80 to 90 per cent—up to 95 per cent in Tasmania—of those log trucks carting our native forest heritage out of those wild forests are going to export woodchip mills. From export woodchip mills, those forest products go through the paper process and end up largely on the rubbish dumps of the Northern Hemisphere, with a 1,000 per cent mark-up in the base product going to overseas interests.There will be those who will talk about the importance of jobs in this industry, and I only wish the industry felt that was the case as well. Since the export woodchippers set up their mills, first at Eden on the South Coast of New South Wales—which is now the wholly Japanese owned Daishowa mill—and, shortly after, at Triabunna on the east coast of Tasmania, the industry has shed 20,000 jobs. This is largely due to the big corporations—operating overseas or out of the states in which the forests exist in the main—moving in to close down small operators, small sawmills, and bringing in technology which gets rid of workers in the bush where the little processing that remains occurs in Australia. They have got rid of workers both in processing and in transporting.It pains me a lot to know that such workers are out around the parliament of Western Australia tonight—much the same as they were out around the parliament here a few short years ago—at the bidding of the woodchip corporations, the big city based operators that fund the Forest Protection Society and the other extensions of the woodchip industry. There is no security coming from those corporations for the very people who sit out there at night blockading parliament and, in the case of Canberra—I do not know about Western Australia—breaking the law with impunity, something which conservationists certainly do not get away with in the forests.It needs to be said that the hypocrisy of this industry, crying crocodile tears over jobs, is one of the reasons why it has lost the public. In my home state of Tasmania, the Regional Forest Agreement was signed by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and by the then Liberal Premier of Tasmania, Tony Rundle, and it has been taken up with gusto by the now Labor Premier of Tasmania, Jim Bacon, who wanted to log even more of the forests. In the short time since that was signed—less than two years—we have seen the closure of the Burnie pulp mill, with a loss of 280 jobs last October, and 10 per cent of the big woodchipper North's work force axed, with another 31 jobs lost in May and the sacking of 33 workers—which is the entire work force, including the disabled work force—who were brought here to Canberra to campaign for logging in the Tarkine against so-called greenies. The lot of them have been closed down and sacked since the Regional Forest Agreement came in.North then shed another 40 contractors' jobs in February. Sixteen jobs went in the shake-up at Australian Newsprint Mills down in the Derwent Valley in June. Ongoing insecurity in the pine sawmilling industry due to Forestry Tasmania's refusal to give Auspine and Wynwood secure contracts continues. There has been the temporary closure of the Burnie paper mill in June this year. There has been North's recent decision to sell its private forests and plantations and its decision the month before last to transfer nine information technology jobs from Tas mania to Melbourne. Besides that, Boral, the other big private woodchipper, in May this year cut its work force by nine jobs.Over 400 jobs have gone west in my little state since the Regional Forest Agreement was signed, yet we have these corporations that are interlinked through the National Forest Association crying crocodile tears in Western Australia and saying that the change to the Regional Forest Agreement is causing the loss of jobs. We have a mass manipulation going on there by these big corporations with the workers manipulated in the middle. I agree with Senator Murphy that it is time that the workers' interests were put at the forefront in this industry and the undue influence of these big corporations was expunged from the political decision making process.I have only to reiterate to this chamber the major decision made by the last government after Senator Faulkner, as minister for the environment, made a very impressive stand for the wishes of most Australians that more forests be protected in this country. That was reversed under pressure. On the very day that the then forestry minister, Mr Beddall, issued licences to the woodchippers—21 December 1965 is the date, if I am not wrong; I will correct that if necessary—the biggest suite of woodchip donations went to the big parties in this parliament. That was not a coincidence. That is undue influence, and it is only the tip of the iceberg when one comes to analyse the power of these big corporations against not only the interests of the forests the people are concerned about but also the interests of their own workers. Their major interest is profit: downsizing, getting rid of jobs which cost money and putting that across into their profit line for the following year.The big failure of this whole process and this legislation is to not look at the prudent and feasible alternative, which is the massive plantation establishment in this country, most of it paid for by taxpayers' money over the last 30 years. Those plantations are available. They are mature. They can provide all the wood requirements for this country, including the current export woodchip aliquot. You have mainly only softwood available but, as far as our important interests are concerned—including structural timbers for building in this country—that is totally available from plantations. We do not need to be destroying our forests and, what is more, the plantation industry is at least involved in downstream processing. Outside this whole process, the good news for jobs in this country is the new mill at Tumut which is going to employ 1,000 workers in New South Wales and is totally based on plantations. That is happening at the same time as this crocodile tear shedding industry is putting hundreds of people out of work, RFA signed or not RFA signed, in the native forest industry.What about the lost job opportunities? In my home state of Tasmania there are 18,000-plus jobs in tourism. Compare the 3,000 jobs that are dependent on forests and wilderness to the 2,400 jobs dependent on logging forests. These are on a collision course; you cannot have it both ways. The smaller the wild forest aliquot the less interest, the less international renown and the more people are going to go elsewhere. So we have a choice here: on the vertical, wild forests for the tourist and recreation industry, which is creating jobs, and they are good quality jobs; or, on the horizontal, forests on the back of a log truck going to a woodchip mill to be processed elsewhere in the world where jobs will be created while we lose jobs.I am amazed that we are still having this debate in this place. Moreover, this legislation is a lay down misere for the woodchip industry. I am amazed that the Labor Party is going to support it, amendments or not. Let me look at the pivotal amendment of the Labor Party: it is that regional forest agreements ought to be vetted by parliament. I am sure One Nation is going to agree that it is not good enough for a Prime Minister and a Premier to sign an agreement outside this parliament and say that that is how a publicly owned resource is going to be worked for the next 20 years. Of course parliament should be vetting those regional forest agreements. But due to internal pressures, including the enormous pressure of the Bacon Labor government in Tasmania on the Labor caucus, the notable exceptions in the Labor amendment are Tasmania and East Gippsland in Victoria—the first RFAs that were signed. They are not to be brought before parliament. There is no way Labor can explain this inconsistency. That is why I will be moving an amendment to ensure that all regional forest agreements are brought before this duly elected parliament so that we can debate, analyse and give feedback as far as these regional forest agreements are concerned.In particular, if there is one thing I take objection to in the provisions of this legislation it is section 7. It was the last section added to this legislation, and it is the section which says that in future any Commonwealth minister who acts to protect part of Australia's forest heritage makes the taxpayer liable to pay the woodchip corporations and the other logging corporations who will lose access to the destruction of those very forests as far as their profit making future is concerned. There is a compensation clause in this legislation added at the last minute under pressure of the woodchip corporations. But there is no compensation in here for workers who lose their jobs—none at all. Is Labor going to support my amendment that puts that to rights?Why should we, as a parliament, be offering compensation to these big woodchip corporations, including internationally based corporations like Daishowa, but failing totally to even get reskilling for workers who lose their jobs because of the action of those very same corporations? It is totally wrong. This is, again, the parliament becoming involved in this manipulation by the woodchip corporations to their own interests. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to remove that compensation clause. I challenge the Labor Party and the Democrats to back that. It is very important that we do not make the taxpayers of this country responsible for future moves by elected parliaments to protect the nation's heritage in the interests of future generations or even in the interests of more job rich alternative industries which depend on those forests.In my home state there is an enormous amount of heritage at stake in this legislation. For 20 years this will give the logging indus try based outside our state with boards of management meeting elsewhere, most of whom have never set foot in the wild forest we are concerned about, the power to determine what happens in those forests and it will strip the federal authorities'—we, as elected parliamentarians—right to stand up for this nation's heritage. I noted the contribution by Senator Bartlett. I note that all nine Democrat members will be speaking in this second reading debate. I put this to the Democrats and I ask the two new ones to look to those who were here six weeks ago and ask this question: how could you, how could the Democrats, without exception pass the so-called environment protection bill—guillotine it so that it could not be debated properly, knock out the amendments through that guillotine process and in so doing endorse this very legislation?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Senator Brown, I think you should address the Chair.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—How could they, Acting Deputy President? They will need more than your protection before I am through in this debate, Acting Deputy President.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is that a threat, Senator Brown? Are you threatening the Chair?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—If you read it that way, it will not be the first mistake that has been made in this place.Senator Sherry interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And it will need more than Labor interjectors to come to the Democrats assistance on this. Just six weeks ago the Democrats passed, with the use of the guillotine, legislation which set in concrete the pivotal provision of this legislation which strips the Minister for the Environment and Heritage of the power to move to the protection of the forests and their wildlife wherever an RFA is in place. That includes endangered species. It overrides the endangered species provisions of that legislation. That involves half the species of this nation's plants and fauna. The legislation which the Democrats voted for in total says that a person may undertake RFA forestry operations—that is, whole scale woodchipping—without approval of the minister if they are undertaken in accordance with a regional forest agreement.I drew the attention of every Democrat to this provision back in June. But they voted for it, and the destruction of the forests from here on in is on their plate. It is their responsibility. They voted for it. To come in now and vote exactly the opposite way shows at best, if we are going to put a good spin on it, a complete confusion about their approach to forests. More than that, it shows a culpability. It shows a failure to carry through the rhetoric of so many years of forest protection, and that has just been exemplified by what Senator Bartlett had to say, which, no doubt, every Democrat in this debate is going to follow up with. I do not bring this matter up just as a political point score. I drew this to their attention before those votes were taken in June. They went ahead knowing what they were doing.This is dastardly legislation. It is awesomely destructive legislation. This locks this nation in for 20 years to the ongoing destruction of our forests, our ecosystems and our wildlife against the wishes, as the opinion polls show, of 80 per cent plus of people right around this nation. This is a failure of the political process. This is a failure of the major parties. This is a tribute to political influence of the corporate sector, including multinational corporations. It lets down not only the environment but also the workers and tragically coopts them in the sort of event that is occurring in Perth tonight and which we saw around this parliament only a few years ago.I put this on notice: those who think that this is the end of the fight to protect, amongst other things, the world's tallest hardwood forests and ancient living ecosystems in my home state of Tasmania and to prevent them being turned across to this evil system inherent in the regional forest agreements of logging, then fire bombing and then 1080 poisoning—a complete destruction of ecosystems as a presage to putting in quick profit making, genetically manipulated plantations—and those who think that the spirit of the people who oppose that is going to go away, are very, very wrong indeed. If this legislation passes this Senate, and the signs are that it will, the fact that it is being sheeted home in the way it is will be on the heads of not only the government but also the Labor Party and the Democrats.There will be a turnaround. It may be difficult to achieve. It may take a lot of turmoil, but it will come. Worst of all is that we should leave that simply to the marauding woodchippers to run out of profitability in the forests that they are destroying at the moment and say, `Well, this industry's come to the end of its life.' It should be transferred to a plantation basis now. It is a failure that, with the political system in this country, that is not the outcome we are voting for in this legislation. I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the first sitting day after the first day on which all regional forest agreements have been completed between the Commonwealth and Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia".21:03:007060Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—It is not coincidence that, when looking through the speakers list on this legislation, there are five senators from Tasmania of the 20 speakers listed who will make a contribution. As a senator from Tasmania, as indeed any of my colleagues know on all sides of the chamber, in Tasmania you cannot escape forestry as an issue.I am pleased to have been in the chamber when Senator Brown made his contribution. Being from Tasmania, I am used to Senator Brown's gross exaggerations. His somewhat hysterical language, some of his use of terminology and some of the examples that he paints to this chamber about forestry in Tasmania are gross exaggerations. I will refer to some specific instances a little later in my contribution. Senator Brown has the habit, and we are used to it in Tasmania, of painting this as good versus evil, black versus white, tourism versus forestry. You can never have a happy compromise according to Senator Brown. As I said, I will refer to some issues that he has raised a little later.I turn firstly to the origin of the legislation we are considering, the National Forest Policy Statement 1992. The Commonwealth and the states and territories signed the National Forest Policy Statement. That statement outlined agreed objectives and policies for the future of Australia's public and private forests. It provided national goals in 11 areas. I will not go through those because time does not permit.As provided for in the National Forest Policy Statement, a comprehensive regional assessment, known as a CRA—a joint assessment of all the forestry values by the Commonwealth and the state, an assessment of the environment, the heritage, the economic and the social implications—will lead to the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, agreements on forest management and the signing of regional forest agreements, known as RFAs. Where the CRAs are in place, approvals for the export of woodchips for periods longer than one year would be considered. The Commonwealth would be able to meet its legislative obligations under section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act.A regional forest agreement is an agreement about the long-term management and use of forests in a particular region between the Commonwealth and the state government. The purpose is to reduce the uncertainty—and I stress the word `reduce'—the duplication and the fragmentation in government decision making by producing a longstanding and durable agreement on the management and use of forests. It was in December 1994 that the then Prime Minister, Mr Keating, intervened to expedite the regional forest agreement process. He announced a strict timetable that would be developed for each agreement which would be developed on the basis of technical and scientific assessments of the values of all the forests.In January 1997, the Commonwealth released details of the agreed criteria for the reserve system. There were three broad criteria of biodiversity for old-growth forests and wilderness: firstly, a benchmark of 15 per cent of the pre-1750s distribution of each forestry community to be protected within conservation reserves; secondly, retention in reserves of at least 60 per cent of existing old growth, increasing up to 100 per cent for rare forestry and community old growth; and, finally, protection of 90 per cent or more, where practical, of high quality wilderness.I think it is fair to say that, on reflection of forestry issues and the areas that should be logged and the manner in which those areas should be logged, over the last 20 years, the last couple of decades, Tasmania has been strongly divided about the way in which forest resources should be used and the way in which the environment should be protected. If we look at the process that I and others have outlined, it had its genesis in the so-called Salamanca agreement in Tasmania. This was an agreement between the various parties, including the environment movement, I might say, at that time and the then Labor government. I pay tribute to the contribution to that process by my state colleague David Llewellyn and the ongoing development and, I hope, finalisation of this process in the recently signed RFA in Tasmania by my colleague the Deputy Premier, Mr Paul Lennon.Senator Brown would have us believe that every tree in every forest that is not in a plantation in Tasmania—and I will say something about plantations a little later—is going to be chopped down, ruthlessly ripped to pieces and exported as woodchips. That is the scenario that Senator Brown would paint, but that is very far from the truth, and I can speak with at least some knowledge of the situation in Tasmania.In my home state, the outcome of the RFA process has been that the total area of Tasmania now within reserves is 2.7 million hectares, or 40 per cent of Tasmania's total land area. As a result of the RFA process, an additional 396,000 hectares of public land reserved, based on the CAR criteria, was placed into those reserves, thus expanding the amount of public land within reserves by an additional 17 per cent. Some 95 per cent of high quality wilderness areas are now included within the CAR reserve system in my home state of Tasmania.I would contend you can have it both ways. You can have a world-class forestry reserve, a national park or a world heritage wilderness area in this country as well as have certain areas set aside for the use of logging. You can have both. Obviously there is an associated and very important spin-off in terms of tourism in those world heritage and national park areas, and we have that in Tasmania.Senator Brown would contend that the big corporations have moved in—they were his words—that they have closed in on the small operators and that the major parties are doing the bidding of the woodchip operators. He would argue that there should not be any woodchip exports. It is on that last point that there would be some common ground between Senator Brown and me.I would fervently hope that we were not exporting woodchips from this country. I would hope that we would maximise the value adding of those woodchips in Australia. But, of course, what is the position of some of the environment movement at least? It is to oppose—at least at the present time—the only practical way of converting those woodchips into pulp or paper products in this country, and that was well demonstrated by their attitude to the proposed pulp and paper mill development at Wesley Vale in my home state of Tasmania.Some in the environmental movement want it both ways. They argue no logging of native forests, convert over to plantations tomorrow and no woodchips and do it tomorrow. That is simply not possible and not practical. If we were to adopt that as an approach, we would shut down the entire forest industry in Australia overnight. The social and economic outcomes of that would be catastrophic in terms of not just the jobs lost in regional economies, I might say, not in the big cities, but the tens of thousands of jobs lost in Australia, not to mention the thousands of jobs lost in Tasmania, my home state, which has a very significant unemployment rate.What is often lost in this debate is that forestry and the downstream processing of forestry is a major regional employer in this country. It is all very well for Senator Brown to say that the big corporations have moved in and are reducing labour and reducing employment—I accept that total employment levels have dropped in most areas of the forest industries as a result of technology—but Senator Brown's solution is to wipe the industry out overnight, to not have the industry at all. He wants to get rid of all the jobs and get rid of all the value adding because the jobs in the forest industries have been slowly reduced. He in fact proposes an accelerated process to deal with what he considers to be the problem. Of course, forestry is no different from most other manufacturing processes in this country with the advent of technology.I was disappointed that Senator Brown used, as an example of the decline in jobs, the manufacturing operation at Somerset, where there are a number of disabled workers. I make particular comment about this because the closure of that operation in Somerset had absolutely nothing to do with disputes about access to forestry resources. As I understand it, it was something to do with the alleged poor management of the operation at the time. It had absolutely nothing to do with the RFA or access to forestry products. He makes mention of those disabled workers at Somerset in a misleading way, using that situation as an example of jobs declining in this industry. He talks about the undue influence of big corporations, but if we were to get rid of every big corporation in Australia—least of all in Tasmania—not just in the forest industry but right across industry, I suspect we would be wiping out half the manufacturing sector in this country overnight. It is not a terribly logical argument from Senator Brown.We make a couple of comments about plantations, but why do we log old-growth forests? Firstly, hopefully, and I think we are now at that point, we are logging them on a sustainable basis. We log old-growth forests in certain areas in Australia because you cannot immediately switch over to plantations. It will take 20 or 30 years to switch over to plantations for logging purposes in this country, and even then there are certain species of trees that are in demand, not for woodchips but for good quality timbers, that do not grow in plantations. We have two basic problems that the environment movement would have us believe are solved overnight, and they can't be. One of the reasons we log old-growth forests in Tasmania, on a sustainable basis, is that certain species of good quality and high demand timber cannot be grown in plantations. Presumably under Senator Brown's proposed solutions you just say goodbye to that section of the industryOne of the interesting issues about the environmental movement's point of view is plantations. Interestingly, in Europe much of the environment movement is very concerned about plantations because plantations are monocultures. Plantations are single species trees—vast thousands of hectares of crop growing with very little biodiversity within those plantations. That is a major issue of concern in Europe amongst the environment movement today. It has, I would argue, a much more significant impact on biodiversity, the local ecology and the water systems than native forest, both old-growth and regrowth forest, that is logged on a sustainable basis.As I said earlier in my contribution, we have been dealing with this issue for about 20 years in Tasmania. The Regional Forest Agreement has been completed in Tasmania, the legislation has passed the Tasmanian parliament and my hope is that, with the successful conclusion of the RFA process at a state level and at a national level, we will see the end of at least some of the difficulties we have seen associated with forest industries. It is important for those who rely on the forest industries to have security of resource. That is an important issue. It is also important that there are significant areas of wilderness and world heritage that are put aside for future recreational use and the important tourist industry. As I said earlier, we are fortunate, at least in Tasmania, to have the best of both worlds.One thing I did learn about this issue long ago is that you have to have a reasonable, logical and scientific process. If you do not have that, you can make short-term political judgments to satisfy particular constituencies, whether it be an industry constituency driven by its short-term needs, or it be the environment constituency with its insatiable demand for preserving every tree. I do not think there would be one tree that Bob Brown could point to in Tasmania that he would be happy to see cut down—he would be opposed to every tree being cut down and there would not be an exception. I can recall Senator Brown being opposed to the cutting down and removal of some disease ridden exotic trees in the Hobart Botanical Gardens. Senator Brown takes the most extreme views. It was not a weed, but it was certainly a threat because of the disease and the fact that the tree itself posed a significant threat.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Not even a weed.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Not even a weed can be dispensed with. I do think that is sometimes Senator Brown's position. I find that very disappointing and very sad because you cannot compromise with Senator Brown, and compromise is possible.With this legislation, and with the legislation that is passed in my home state of Tasmania, we will certainly see a process set in place that ensures adequate reserve systems, that ensures world heritage and wilderness values are maintained, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, ensures that there are areas that are available to the forest industries for their legitimate use. Senator Brown referred to logging and firebombing. The reason you burn a regrowth native forest after logging is to regenerate it. If any senators have seen an old-growth forest that is not burnt after it has been logged, it is an absolute catastrophe; it is a wasteland. What regrows as a result is a total disaster. Fire is a natural part of the forestry ecology in eucalypt forests in this country.Senator Quirke interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—They are trying it out in Western Australia. Senator Brown raises these highly emotive descriptions when, in fact, they are part of the very essence and survival of eucalypt forests in this country. He never explains that to his particular constituency. I hope that we see at least the end of some of the more rancorous and outrageous contributions we have had from sections of the environment movement and, in particular, Senator Brown. Fortunately, with the setting in place of this process in my home state of Tasmania, and I hope nationally, we have seen some security on both sides of the divide on this issue. We have seen some acceptance and realisation of a reasonable reality and a balance on the reality of this issue.I would say that I am concerned about woodchip exports. I think there is a real political danger that we will see an unravelling of RFAs unless we see greater downstream processing in Australia, particularly in my home state, of woodchip exports. Woodchip exports are an unfortunate by-product of logging—and they should be a by-product and not the primary purpose for logging forests. But, of course, I have highlighted the hypocrisy of the environment movement when it comes to processing or downstreaming those woodchips into pulp and paper in Australia. That would certainly be of significant benefit to my home state of Tasmania in terms of jobs and the critical problem that we have in our balance of payments in the forest areas. (Time expired)21:23:007063Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I also want to speak on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and perhaps make a couple of comments about previous speakers. Let me commend Senator Sherry for his speech. While I do not agree with all of it, as usual it is a very thoughtful, considered and reasoned approach that he takes, and he has made a useful contribution.I was going to comment about Senator Brown's speech, but I think Senator Sherry has probably covered most of the things I would want to say. I am not sure what Senator Brown is trying to do, because he makes the same speech time after time, and it is always negative. One of the other problems with Senator Brown's contribution is that he always uses half-truths, and half-truths are probably the worst kind of lie that there is, because they always promote a suggestion that what he is saying has some truth in it and therefore it should be listened to. But in fact, when you promote a half-truth, it is the most dangerous lie of all.That is why I believe that what Senator Sherry has said—while I would have wanted to have gone into detail—covered some of the things that I would have said. Obviously, I do not agree with all of Senator Sherry's contributions but, as I said by way of introduction, certainly it is always worth listening to the contribution he makes because it is always well reasoned and well thought through. The problem that the Democrats have is that we do not really believe that the RFA process delivers jobs—that is the biggest problem we have with it—and certainly not for the impoverished and vulnerable rural areas, where most of the disputes are occurring.I had the responsibility of sitting in on the Senate legislation committee which heard evidence from a number of witnesses about the breakdown of the social fabric of communities which are heavily dependent upon the timber industry. That breakdown continues, and that concerns me very deeply. I know some of these people personally, particularly those in Queensland, and I know the hurt that they are suffering. In particular, from the Senate hearings, the evidence which was given by the Forest Protection Society about this, and the evidence which they produced and the documentation of the research which underpinned their evidence, is worth quoting from. The Democrats are deeply concerned about the decline in employment and population in many of Australia's rural and regional areas. The submission of the Forest Protection Society stated in graphic language the situation:RFA social assessments have identified many social affects our communities have, arising from insecurity and uncertainty, including very high unemployment rates, increased suicides, substance abuse, marriage breakdowns and medical problems, as well as economic consequences of bankruptcy and debt related breakdown of business and family units.The Democrats recognise the loss of jobs in the timber industry which has occurred over many years, although some witnesses gave evidence of a slight improvement in some areas. However, we reject the simplistic notion that job losses are primarily a result of attempts at environmental protection of oldgrowth forests.There are complex reasons for the loss of jobs in the timber industry, some of which parallel the loss of jobs in many areas of rural and remote Australia generally. Reasons unrelated to environmental activism—and, it would seem, ones of far greater employment significance—include the following: increas ing mechanisation, corporate consolidation and rationalisation of mill operations, and decreasing areas of easy source material. They also include the takeover of pulping and woodchipping as the primary focus in many forest areas. This deters or deleteriously affects downstream or value added investment. Problems arise when plantation industry products, which are a greater employer, are undercut to such an extent by lower employment generating pulp and woodchip products.The Democrats believe the only way in which long-term job security can be assured is through proper value adding to forest products and basing the industry on sustainable and existing plantations. It was demonstrated by a number of witnesses, such as Judy Clark and Francis Gray, that the economics of native forest logging are simply not sustainable. Of Australia's 14 largest sawmills, each processing over 100,000 cubic metres of logs per annum, all are softwood plantation mills. None relies on native forest logs.The Western Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union is part of the way there in its assessment:The jobs with manufacturing and processing capability close to production of material in the south-west will enhance the quality of life for many south-west residents. With this commitment together with that of the industry and workers, it would be possible for Western Australia to become known for its furniture in the same way that Holland is known for its tulips. There is no doubt that, should this be the only exploitative use for those forests, the issue would not be as contentious. But since the majority use becomes focused around the voracious needs of the woodchip industry, smaller saw millers are disadvantaged considerably.Senator Shayne Murphy, in his evidence to the inquiry, argued that North Forest Products, one of the main woodchippers in Tasmania, is controlling the supply of logs for woodchips to the detriment of small sawmillers and that many logs are being sent to be chipped or even burnt when they could be processed for higher quality uses. He pointed out that sawlogs and timber for quality furniture are being lost to the industry as a result. Senator Murphy showed the committee photos of a salvage operation after woodchip harvest where myrtle species suitable for sawlog use were being taken away to be burnt. I quote from his evidence:When you look at these photographs you will see, and you do not have to be a rocket scientist to work it out, that these are sawlogs. The Forestry Corporation of Tasmania indicated to me—indeed, in writing—that these coupes contain no sawlogs.Although some witnesses said the absence of completed RFAs was holding back investment, the actual evidence linking RFAs to employment outcomes was much less tangible. Some basic figures were not available to the committee, including the exact number of jobs in the plantation sector and the number of jobs in the native forest sector overall.How are we to take the government on trust that the RFA process is the way to solve the dispute about use of Australia's native forests? Senators certainly pursued a common line of inquiry in search of evidence that resource security will generate investment and jobs, but there was no substantial evidence presented that it would. Even with RFAs substantially in place the industry has not made the commitment that it will invest in the downstream processing that is the only possible source of major new employment in the native forest product sector. Indeed, evidence was given that the Burnie pulp mill closed with the imminent signing of the RFAs, with the loss of many jobs. The reality is that jobs in the native forest industry will continue to decline because the native forest industry is relying more and more heavily on woodchip, despite the fact that the woodchip industry needs considerable propping up from the public purse and is unsustainable.If the government were serious about long-term jobs and security, then it should focus on the most commercially viable part of the industry—the plantation sector. Within that sector investment must be encouraged in processing and plantation wood, particularly at this time as we have larger and larger areas of plantation coming on stream. I recognise the comment made by Senator Sherry—that is, that there is a problem with monoculture within plantations. However, it is not necessary to have plantations simply of one species. There have been experiments in north Queensland particularly with revegetating and replanting, particularly on clapped-out dairy farms in that area. There are about 11 different local government authorities involved in this particular experiment where, instead of planting simply monoculture, the attempt has been made to plant a number of species in association with one another. So I take the point that Senator Sherry made that it is not necessarily the way of the future in relation to plantation timber.The big employment generators are to be found in further processing of plantation sawn timber and wood panels into products like furniture, joinery, roof trusses and the like. This way, the plantation industry further processes most of the timber it harvests, creating more jobs. The native forest industry does not even get over the first hurdle of processing as they export most of their products overseas as woodchips, and that is the problem—they do not provide the raw product for further processing. So it is nonsensical to put money, legislative backing and time into the native forest industry while failing at the same time to capture and increase jobs in the plantation sector. The irony is that most of those jobs are in regional Australia so it would match the government's rhetoric perfectly should they choose to deliver in this area.Evidence was given that about 60 per cent of wood logged from native forest is chipped and exported, and that is increasing and will continue to do so under the RFAs. Evidence was also given that this process is heavily subsidised and the community receives a grossly inadequate return on the use of its resource. The majority of Australia's processed wood needs are being met by the plantation sector, and this process will continue despite the continuing heavy subsidy of the native forest sector. The overall effect of the evidence, particularly that of economic consultants, was that jobs would continue to be lost in the native forest sector covered by the RFAs and generated in the plantation sector, which has been mainly ignored in the RFA process.With indirect jobs the position only gets worse. With the increasing dominance of woodchipping in native forest logging, indirect employment in this area will continue to decline. It is apparent that government subsidies to increase downstream processing have had an insignificant effect. In contrast, in the plantation sector not only is the employment multiplier greater, it will continue to improve regardless of the relative lack of government assistance. If the government were to match its regional employment and development rhetoric with positive action it would be addressing a number of issues holding the plantation sector back, not continuing to prop up a native forest sector even more in thrall to woodchipping interests which appear, from the evidence, to have the lowest levels of employment and the most minimal multipliers.It is unfortunate, but apparently true, that the plantation industry is at a crossroads where there will be losses of potential downstream jobs as a result of the RFAs. Prices of native forest logs are now so low that there are starting to be stockpiles of sawlogs and export of unprocessed plantation sawlogs as well. The Burnie pulp mill closed despite the imminent signing of the Tasmanian RFA, meaning hundreds of jobs disappeared in an area that could ill afford to lose them.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You should have built Wesley Vale.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—That is certainly an issue that should be debated as well I think, Senator Sherry. If the RFAs were truly about guaranteeing jobs, then this should not have happened. It would also not have happened if the industry in the area was sustainable. If the industry was based in plantations it may have stood a chance, as there is little doubt that a Japanese decision to source all chips from plantation areas within a decade has had a significant impact on the decision to close.Events in Western Australia have reached high farce, with decisions being made and remade against political tidal waves. Workers have as little security from day to day as Western Australians do about the security of their old-growth forests from woodchip mills. Western Australia has shown us conclusively that there is no certainty with RFAs in terms of conservation of jobs. The bill, which potentially exposes the Commonwealth to huge compensation payouts, has no guarantee about investment or jobs. If the bill is before the Senate in order to help increase employment in rural and regional areas, it will have the effect of suppressing employment in a growing sector and presiding over its dwindling in a declining sector. The Democrats have not supported the RFA bill, because so much information is distorted or missing and the RFA process does not satisfy our concern for providing the maximum amount of jobs in a sustainable manner for rural and regional Australia.I want in the couple of minutes that are left to place on the record a number of articles by a journalist from the Courier-Mail in Brisbane, a journalist whom I respect very greatly. His name is Tony Koch. Not only has he written some very good articles on this issue; he has written a number of articles in the whole area of what is happening in Aboriginal communities. They underline his commitment to rural, remote and regional areas, particularly in my state of Queensland. He comments about the particular issue in Queensland of small sawmills, particularly in south-west Queensland, that depend on the cypress pine industry.I need to underline that I do know a fair bit about this particular industry. Having lived in western Queensland for quite a few years, I was aware of the cypress pine industry there and of the important contribution it made and makes to regional economies in that area. I point out that cypress pine is one of those resources which regenerates without any help from human beings. In some places it grows like weeds but, nevertheless, it is a very good timber for building houses—and, I might add, for building churches. On one occasion I built a church at Injune out of cypress pine that was supplied by a grazier who supplied all of the pine for the church and then a double quantity to pay for the sawmilling. So I have some experience of that.However, in his articles in the Courier-Mail Tony Koch pointed out the threat to some of those regional areas in Queensland because of the possibility of the loss of the cypress pine resource to small sawmillers. That was not because of the RFA so much as through the process of the national competition policy, which would force the industry to throw open the resource to public tender, and the possibility of large corporations moving in and taking over that resource and the small towns losing the employment which was provided. In his article, he points out:Cypress harvesting generates $30 million annually, and the State Government is paid almost $3 million in royalties from the sawmillers.Just let me put on the record:The towns which would be affected by any closure of local mills include Inglewood, Millmerran, Cecil Plains, Chinchilla, Miles, Taroom, Wandoan, Injune, Roma, Augathella, Mitchell, Mungallala, Dulacca-North and Surat.He says that the pessimism in those townships about local ownership and control of the western Queensland cypress industry is reflected also in the departure of key staff from the industry. I want to underline in my contribution tonight the concern I have for the loss of jobs in the timber industry—although I would give different solutions perhaps to some of the ones given by Senator Sherry—because I am concerned also for all of those small towns which employ people in this industry.21:43:007067Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise to speak on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . Other Democrats colleagues have spoken or will speak on the issues of jobs, plantations and the environment and on legal issues, and I will address other less considered forest values. The Democrats believe the RFA process discriminates unfairly against other important cultural values and social and economic benefits provided by native forests in this country. Forests account for an increasing amount of tourist dollars and, as a new market area is developed, more areas open up, providing more value adding to tourist experiences. Not only is the tourism industry a significant growth industry in native forest areas; it has a far better multiplier effect than the woodchip industry, and its services are delivered on site in the local area, rather than exported as a basic product.It is hard to imagine an Australia without some of our most significant natural areas, and very often they do not enter our psyches as important until after they have been pro tected. Australians, I am sure, would not now tolerate the logging of Fraser Island any more than they would the wet tropics, and these places now attract hundreds of millions of dollars in tourism revenue. The RFAs, I would argue, have the potential to destroy infant and prospective tourist areas for a short-term—disgracefully underpriced—return. In my home state of Victoria, the state government sold timber from native forests for just 9c a tonne.In terms of opportunity costs, the Democrats predict that the tourism industry will be one of the biggest losers in the RFA process. There was evidence in Western Australia that the tourism industry has been ignored by the WA RFA process as well, and their concerns about the RFA are well catalogued. Another witness suggested, not unreasonably, that the tourism industry could equally argue for compensation under the RFAs for the opportunity cost of areas that would be logged and mined.Briefly, in terms of other forest uses, the Wombat Forest Society presented evidence that beekeepers would be significantly disadvantaged. They also pointed out that a large number of people rely on high quality water through that forest region, which will be detrimentally affected by logging, and that irrigators downstream would also be negatively affected. Logging continues in the Otways, even though many coupes are in water attachments. The evidence is clear that clear-felling reduces water production very substantially and for many years to come. Geelong's water supply depends on the Otways. The dams are very low at present and we cannot afford to lose the water generating capacity of this or any other forest.It is not clear that compensation has been ruled out for parties affected by RFAs and, again, perhaps there is potential for future compensation claims on the Commonwealth as a result of these processes. The Wombat State Forest is quite close to Melbourne and I think it is fair to say it is highly valued by the surrounding communities. It was once selectively and sustainably logged by foresters who are now appalled by the clear-felling taking place, as are those thou sands of people who visit the area on a regular basis. The question is whether it is responsible for the Senate to vote on legislation that will certainly destroy areas of huge income potential which have the ability to create sustainable jobs in local areas, maintain water quality and generate wealth in return for one-off destruction and export of a primary product. The Democrats simply do not believe so.The bill removes the capacity for the Commonwealth to require export licences for hardwood woodchips and other unprocessed wood from an RFA region. Even the CFMEU, not normally noted for being uncompromising protectors of native forest areas, disagrees with this provision of the bill and says that export controls should remain. The hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in forest marches, and written to state and federal governments over the last decade all think that woodchipping native forests has a significant impact on the environment.Not only will large and ecologically significant areas be sanctioned for woodchipping, with no environmental regulatory control; the Australian taxpayer will clearly be paying dearly for this devastation. Woodchipping does not make money; it costs money, and plenty of it. In my home state of Victoria, five years ago the state made $40 million out of native forest woodchip export, but it cost $90 million in the process. That means Victorians paid $50 million to have our forests chipped in just one year.It seems to me that state governments have a conflict of interest with regard to RFAs. The RFA process will be mostly controlled by state governments who have a vested and financial short-term interest in the outcomes. The RFA agreements have been controlled and negotiated, and will be managed by sections of state governments, and serious questions have been raised about their ability to provide objective assessment and regulation. One lot of evidence pointed to the Western Australian EPA bulletin No. 912 which produced a landmark report stating that there was a significant conflict of interest in the Department of Conservation and Land Management—Debate interrupted.Adjournment706810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.706821:50:007068Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—In the book The Clever Country? Australia's Digital Future , Daniel Petre and David Harrington explore the capacity of Australia to meet the challenges of an inevitably technological future. They comment particularly on the capacity of the Australian populace to utilise the `online revolution' to their advantage. They speak of the need for Australia to become `an information capital, not an information outpost'. Clearly, Australia must use the information revolution to its greatest advantage, but how best to do that is often a matter for debate.I have previously addressed issues relating to the IT revolution and information technology in general, and most recently discussed the particular challenges for those in rural and regional Australia in terms of their particular route on the information superhighway. I have also spoken, not in conjunction with this but in other areas, of the work of the NSW Liberal Women's Council and Liberal Women's Forum and the important efforts that they have put in in many policy areas. In continuing to recognise their efforts, I want to put on record the success of their most recent endeavour, an annual rural rendezvous held in Mittagong in the New South Wales Southern Highlands which I attended a week or so ago. This year's theme `The Bush Telegraph for the 21st Century' targeted questions of information technology for non-metropolitan regions. The range of speakers included Tom Worthington, who is the immediate past president of the Computer Society; Fay Lamont, a finalist in the Telstra Businesswoman of the Year Awards in 1998; Meredith Laverty, a board member of the Internet Industry Association; and Dr Wendy Craik, the Executive Director of the National Farmers Federation. The benefit of the meeting was in raising policy issues in the areas of telecommunications and IT that need to be addressed, particularly for those Australians outside metropolitan areas who are, in many ways, at a disadvantage in terms of IT developments.Issues of access, speed and resources are very real stumbling blocks for those in rural and regional areas who wish to join the information superhighway. For women, the challenges can be still greater. In addressing these issues, the organisers of the meeting—in particular, the Vice-Presidents of the Women's Council, Robyn Parker and Juliet Arkwright—were focused on matters of crucial importance not only to women but also to the broader Australian community. Of most interest to the meeting was the interaction of women and IT. On the one hand, the challenge is to ensure that women have access to IT developments and can utilise them in their daily lives. On the other hand, it is also about ensuring that women take advantage of the employment boom in this area, so that the IT industry is not just `jobs for the boys'.Some of the international trends in this regard are of concern. The percentage of women holding technical jobs in the United States stands at just 28 per cent. In Australia, the estimated percentage of women working in IT is similar. When you combine that with other US indicators, where female enrolments in computer science degrees are dropping, that low level is of concern, especially when you reflect on the trend over recent decades of increasing numbers of women entering the work force. This trend has been responsible for much of the employment growth over that same period. Recently, Phil Ruthven, Executive Chairperson of IBIS Business Information, made the point on ABC's Lateline that 30 per cent of the jobs created since 1965 have arisen out of the increase in the number of working women who now require other people to do the work often traditionally done by women in the home. An area like child care is a prime example. It is important to note this because the IT industry is clearly distinct from this trend. IT is an area where women are not enjoying an automatic foothold in its growth.Ensuring that women are able to take advantage of this employment direction must be done consciously and deliberately, and at two levels. Firstly, we need to encourage women to pursue career opportunities in this area. The Women in Technology International Foundation, based in the US, has this firmly in its sights. Founded in 1989, it is dedicated to advancing women in technology. Its agenda includes increasing the number of women in executive roles in technology and technology based companies and encouraging young women to choose careers in science and technology. In Australia women in IT are developing their own support networks.The online publication Geekgirl has been in operation for some time. It is providing support for women interested in IT by communicating with those women who might count themselves as cyber buffs. It started its life as a comic and went on to become an immensely popular e-zine and even a more old-fashioned magazine. It is also important to encourage younger women towards IT careers and we can start this process at a very early age. In fact, in the United States Girl Scouts can gain a proficiency badge in technology and the Internet. In Australia, our Brownies can pursue a badge in computers.One of the most important issues that I think we need to consider as a nation amongst the issues relating to information technology is that of the information poor. While we may recognise the impact of the Internet on economies, employment and other areas, there is growing concern that this impact may not be equal across contemporary society. Information poverty is about those in our society who do not have access to or an understanding of IT developments and advantages. There is a body of thought which predicts that, as IT developments continue to sweep the world, we run the risk of creating a whole new class of underprivileged. Because of the speed of communication and information access inherent in information technology developments, there is even concern that this trend may heighten gaps in our society between rich and poor rather than alleviating the divide, as many would hope.Information poverty is visible at two levels: at an international or macro level and at a community or micro level. At an international level, there is a serious concern that IT advantages are accessible primarily to Western developed nations and not to those who might benefit most from IT implementation. Recent research in Information Technology for Development referred to the challenge of ensuring that IT is adopted equally across the globe. Current indications are that developed nations, like Australia, are most advanced, but underdeveloped nations have not been able to adopt IT as easily. The comparison is in fact staggering. In the January edition of Technology Review, reference was made to the spending of the United States on IT compared with other countries. For every $US1 spent in Bangladesh, for example, $3,000 is spent in the United States.I think this is an area in which Australia can play a leadership role, both in our region and across the globe more generally, but not at the expense of those Australians who might unwittingly fall into the category of information poor at a micro level—for example, those people in regional areas; women, as I have already referred to; those with little education; those on low incomes; and those from a non-English speaking background. We have to ensure that those on the inside, so to speak, do not gain advantage at the exclusion of others in the Australian community. Our challenge is to ensure that new technologies do not reinforce existing inequities and, where possible, alleviate them where they exist.A couple of weeks ago, an article in the Australian Financial Review highlighted many of the difficulties. It cited, again, American statistics indicating a significant information divide, with the lowest users of the Internet in the United States being rural and inner city Hispanic households and inner city African-American households. Indications are that the disparity between these groups and others is growing. In the United States and Australia, this is real poverty. It is about people who cannot pay home phone bills, let alone buy mobile phones and computers for themselves and their children. The disparity in the Australian context is similar. Rural Australians do not have the multiplicity or perhaps even the luxury of access to the Net that many of us enjoy. While I have a computer with Internet access in my office in Parramatta, here at Parliament House and at home, most rural and regional Australians, particularly women, do not have this range of access. For many of them, their home is their office and, if they do not pay for the access themselves, there is no other option.The capacity of information technology to alleviate social divides is something on which we must focus. A special report in last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald noted how young residents of Newcastle are using the Internet to organise significant events and help revitalise their city. One contributor said:The Internet has changed the dynamics of living in a regional area.They went on to say that it had enabled people to remain in Newcastle after finishing university rather than automatically going to Sydney or Melbourne. This work is a reminder of how the Internet can act as a catalyst for overcoming inequalities rather than reinforcing them.In considering the preparedness of Australian governments to deal with advances in technology, Petre and Harrington contemplated the design of this very building. They asked:. . . whether, given the communications revolution, the architects would have changed the design of their building if undertaking the project today.Such hindsight is valuable but impossible to attain. In a sense, however, we are now in an equivalent position with regard to the development of the IT industry in Australia. We are at the designing stage and it is important that we have the best possible structure—one that assists development, whilst ensuring that no Australians are falling through the cracks.707021:59:007070O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Today we quite appropriately paid our respects to three former members of the Australian parliament who had recently passed away. Tonight I want to put on record some comments about a friend and colleague of mine who passed away on 26 July this year at the age of 75. His name was Leo Brown.Leo began life in May 1924. He was the third son of parents Bob and Ruby. I believe he was born in Hobart and educated at the Goulburn Street School and for a short while at Hobart Technical School. I gathered from my conversations with Leo that he greatly enjoyed his early life at school and formed close and lasting relationships not only with his brothers and sisters but with many of his classmates as well. But these were tough times for a young boy growing up in Hobart. Due to the toughness of living in Depression years, Leo needed to leave school at the age of 12. I am given to understand that Leo's teachers endeavoured to have him continue, but this was not possible. Leo had to become one of the breadwinners for his family in those very difficult years leading up to the Second World War.On 5 August 1942, Leo enlisted in the RAAF. He was probably at the youngest possible age to do so. He lost his mother during the war. On discharge from the RAAF at the conclusion of the war, he took up a serviceman's retraining position with a tailor and became a tailor's apprentice. He liked that work, and the skills that he learnt served him well in later life, but his master informed him that there was not a future in tailoring and advised him to take other employment. Leo went to work in the printer area of the Hobart Mercury. He worked there for a few years but believed that his advocacy of the cause of his fellow work mates was not going to lead him to have a promising career at the Mercury. He applied for, and obtained, a position on the Hobart waterfront as a waterside worker.In 1958, Leo was involved in the championing of the cause of organised labour on the waterfront as part of the Waterside Workers, a case that went to the courts and became nationally famous about the rights of organisations and the way they spend their moneys—the Hursey case. During that year, he was approached by the then General Secretary of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union, Ray Gietzelt, and asked to take a paid position as the secretary of that organisation in Hobart. At that time, that organisation represented only a very small group of work ers—waterfront watchmen, a job that now does not really exist. They were people who maintained the security of vessels tied up alongside the wharf in ports around Tasmania.Leo proceeded to build that organisation to represent a great many different callings, particularly cleaners, in the area of Hobart. He did that in the face of much adversity and went on to become the secretary of the union until 1972. He then became a full-time paid president. He continued in that role until he retired in 1989 and remained president until 1990. He subsequently became a vice-president of that organisation and an executive member of the Amalgamated Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, a position which I believe he held up to the time of his death.Leo was a great activist in the trade union movement and in the labour movement. He was active in the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council and a contemporary of Senator Harradine, who was, during Leo's involvement, the secretary for an extended period of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council. I think it had been the Hobart Trades and Labour Council earlier. Leo was not only interested in industrial affairs; he was a long-time activist in the peace movement, and he maintained that activity following his retirement when he continued his involvement in an organisation known as the Tasmanian Peace Trust, for which he was treasurer from 1994 until 30 June this year.He also played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Community Mediation Service in that state. His tenacity and his ability to lobby politicians were extremely valuable in securing the financial security of the community mediation organisation from the Keating government. I might say that, during his lifetime, Leo was honoured for his efforts and his life's work with life memberships of his union, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council and, of course, the Australian Labor Party. Leo was also honoured by the Australian community and made a member of the Order of Australia in 1988.There are a great many people who make important contributions to this nation. As I said earlier, we recognised some of those today. I think it is important that, as occurs on many occasions, members of this community who spend their lives working within the community, without necessarily receiving their due rewards, should be recognised in this place. That is the purpose that I wanted to rise today.I was privileged in being able to speak at Leo's funeral on 30 July this year. Leo's three living sons, Dana, Greg and Lian, also spoke and, I think, continue the tradition of forthright speech that Leo would have established for them. I can say that Leo would have been very proud of their efforts and those of Pauline, his wife. Leo married Pauline in June 1949, their marriage having continued for just over 50 years. Pauline, who remained one of his most loyal supporters for all of his life, has been left with the legacy of having lived with a great man. Pauline herself, in my view, is a very great woman who, to a wonderful and valuable extent, has contributed to the whole of Leo's life since they met in 1947, and no tribute to Leo would be complete without giving the credit to Pauline which is so due.Can I say that it has been my privilege to have known Leo, as indeed it has been the privilege of many people. At Leo's funeral there were somewhere between 400 and 500 people—people from all walks of life: members of parliament, trade unionists, his colleagues and his family. It was sad in that Leo had lost his brother a matter of days before he died. I think the world has been made a better place for having had the presence of Leo Brown in it.707222:09:007072Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Last Thursday in Switzerland I represented the government at the ecumenical service for those who lost their lives at Interlaken. The previous Wednesday I met with the survivors and Swiss officials.I would like to put on the record my thanks to the President of Switzerland, Madam Dreifuss; Vice President Adolph Ogi; Canton President, Samuel Bendt; and the many officials who responded to this tragic event with outstanding sensitivity. I should also like to put on record my thanks for the exemplary manner in which Australian officials represented their government and the support they gave to the survivors and the families of the victims. Ambassadors Paul O'Sullivan, Les Luck and Geoff Raby all went to Interlaken and they and their officers provided comfort to the bereaved relatives. Particular mention should be made of Consul-General Malcolm Skelly, who established an office there immediately on learning of the accident and who worked tirelessly, frequently without sleep, over the next nine days.Those who have experienced the loss of a child have some understanding of the grief that this entails, but few would have felt the helplessness associated with the sudden, unexpected tragic death of their loved ones on the other side of the world, in a foreign country. Sir William Deane spoke at the service on behalf of the Australian people and made a moving tribute which captured the emotions of all those present. I believe it should be recorded in Hansard and seek leave to have it incorporated.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—ADDRESS BY SIR WILLIAM DEANE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE CANYONING TRAGEDY INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLANDTHURSDAY, 5 AUGUST 1999We are gathered in great sadness to mourn the deaths of the 21 young people who were killed in the canyoning accident near here, last week. They came from five nations Switzerland, the United Kingdom, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Their loss is a profound tragedy for their families and friends who are in the thoughts and the prayers of all of us at this service today. We pray with them for their loved ones who have died. And we also pray that, in the words of our Lord (Matthew Ch.5, v.4), they will truly be comforted.Fourteen of the victims of the tragedy came from Australia. Collectively, their deaths represent probably the greatest single peacetime loss of young Australians outside our own country. That loss affects not only their families and friends, dreadful though that is. It also deeply affects our nation as a whole and all of its people.I have, as Governor-General of Australia, with Senator John Herron of our Government come here on behalf of Australia and of all Australians, to mourn them, to be with and to sympathise with their family members and friends who are here, and to demonstrate how important they were to their homeland. For us, the tragedy is somehow made worse by the fact that they died so far away from the homes the families, the friends and the land they loved so well.Australia and Switzerland are on opposite sides of the globe. Yet, in this age of modern telecommunications, one effect of the disaster has been to bring our two countries closer together. On every night since the accident, Switzerland has been in every Australian home that has been tuned into the television news, as well as on the radio, in all our newspapers and other media outlets. Conversely, the fact that two-thirds of those who died came from Australia has given rise to an increased awareness here in Switzerland of my country and its people.Switzerland has, of course, itself experienced the shock and sorrow of overseas tragedy in the past. Perhaps that has heightened the sympathy and understanding which it has shown in recent days. I have already had the privilege of meeting with you, Madam President, and with Vice-President Ogi and exchanging condolences. I would, on this solemn occasion, like to express to the Swiss authorities and to the people of Switzerland, particularly the people of the Wilderswil and Interlaken regions, our abiding gratitude for all the help and assistance they have provided in the aftermath of the tragedy. In particular, I pay tribute to the bravery of all those who worked in the rescue efforts. We thank them for their skill and dedication. I also particularly mention the competence, the compassion and the kindness of all who have helped to look after the survivors and the relatives who have come here.The young people—certainly the young Australians—who have been killed all shared the spirit of adventure, the joy of living, the exuberance and the delight of youth.That spirit inspired their lives, and lit the lives of all who knew than, until the end. We remember that and so many other wonderful things about them as we mourn them and grieve for young lives cut so tragically short. And all of us feel and share in their collective loss. For these 21 young men and women were part—a shining part—of our humanity. As John Donne wrote, "No man is an island". Anyone's "death diminishes" us all because we are all "involved in mankind". Yesterday, my wife and I, together with family members and fiends of the Australian victims visited the canyon where the accident occurred. There, in memory of each of the 14 young people who came from our homeland we cast into the Saxetenbach 14 sprigs of wattle, our national floral emblem, which we had brought with us from Government House in Canberra. Somehow, we felt that was bringing a little of Australia to them.It was also in a symbolic way, helping to bring them home to our county. That is not to suggest that their spirit and their memory will not linger forever here in Switzerland, at the place where they died. Rather, it is to suggest that a little part of Switzerland has become, and will always be, to some extent, part of Australia. As it will also be part of other countries outside Switzerland—New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom—from whence they came.It is still winter at home. But the golden wattles are coming into bloom. Just as these young men and women were in the flower of their youth. And when we are back in Australia we will remember how the flowers and the perfume and the pollen of their and our homeland were carried down the river where they died to Lake Brienz in this beautiful country on the far side of the world.May they all rest with God.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRON—On behalf of the government, I wish to join with Sir William Deane in expressing my sincere condolences to all of those who are bereaved.707322:11:007073Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise tonight to speak about the need for extra funding for financial counselling services throughout Australia. The coalition government has not increased funding for these extremely important services for the last three years. Over that period these services have received the same allocation of funds, even though the Central Queensland Financial Counselling Service last year had its budget cut by $5,000 for some unknown reason.Financial counselling services were established under the last Labor government in response to the community's need for such services. The Labor government in its last budget allocated an additional $2 million in funding to Commonwealth financial counselling services, but the coalition government withdrew those additional funds in its first budget. Financial counselling services are needed more now than ever before. The workload of the services has increased to a point where they are being forced to cut back on the level of services they provide so they do not have to turn away anyone who comes to them in the midst of a financial crisis. The services are in dire need of the allocation of extra money to pay for extra services that are desperately needed by people in the community.As the struggle for financial survival becomes more and more difficult, the number of people who find themselves on the verge of financial ruin is constantly on the rise. Extra services are needed in regional communities where people do not have access to organisations such as the Smith Family, the Salvation Army or St Vincent de Paul. People in these areas rely heavily on services provided by the counsellors of the Commonwealth financial counselling services. These services are becoming the most crucial of services in today's society.Lately in the media there have been reports about the amount of money that Australians are spending on gambling. Unfortunately, it is becoming a huge problem for people in our community and an added workload for financial counsellors. This is an added problem that they would rather not have. And why wouldn't gambling be a problem? Everywhere you go these days you bump into a poker machine. In Queensland not only do we have casinos and clubs for gambling purposes but also every pub has numerous poker machines. I know this is a great revenue earner for the states, but unfortunately gambling is becoming a national problem.Financial counselling services have reported that there has been a significant increase in the number of aged pensioners who are using their facilities because of credit card debt. It is extremely difficult for these people to ask for help. By the time they actually contact a financial counsellor, they already are at the crisis stage. Most elderly people have never had to rely on credit card debt before but, due to the hardships they now face trying to make ends meet, more and more are finding themselves on the verge of a financial crisis. The creditors are quite often unrealistic in their expectations of anyone on a pension. Many of them all too quickly push personal bankruptcy as the best outcome. I ask: for whom is it the best outcome? One could say that, for the creditors, this is a quick-fix solution. They can claim their loss through their insurance or use it as a tax break. What about the personal trauma these people experience and the long-term personal humiliation they feel?Another alarming fact is the increase in the number of applications for personal bankruptcy. Almost 30 per cent of these applications are coming from the small business community. The coalition government claim to be great supporters of small business, but the amount of small business bankruptcies is very disturbing indeed, and this is an additional service that the financial counselling service has had to pick up. Fortunately, the current Bankruptcy Act ensures that the Insolvency Trustee Service of Australia contacts the Commonwealth Financial Counselling Service before any bankruptcy is processed. At least this enables people to find out whether there is an alternative measure that could be taken before they formally and irretrievably go bankrupt.The fact is that, whether the problem is due to a breakdown in a relationship, a loss of employment, a business deal gone wrong or a death in the family, the demand for the service the financial counsellors provide is constantly on the increase. There is no doubt that the financial counselling services provide an invaluable service to the community. The fact is that they are suffering financial hardships of their own due to the lack of adequate funding by this government. These hardships include having to beg other organisations for postage stamps, stationery and even office furniture. The employees find themselves in a situation where, when the funding runs out, they are unable to draw wages. But the most severe hardship is the reduction in the services that they are able to provide to the people in their community at a time of financial crisis. There is no additional funding for these or any other supplementary costs that may be associated with the running of these services. The Central Queensland counsellor did not draw wages for 2½ months because her funds ran out in May. This year's funding did not arrive until 27 July because of computer problems in Treasury. But if you ring this particular financial counselling service on any Saturday or Sunday, you will invariably find the counsellor working to keep up with the enormous demand for her services. The service provider in Townsville has an area of coverage that spans 200 kilometres to the north, 200 kilometres to the south and 1,000 kilometres to the west, and they do not receive any additional funding for travel. Surely the government cannot expect that the people who happen to live 1,000 kilometres west of Townsville who find themselves on the verge of financial ruin should be asked to fund their own travel to Townsville in order to receive counselling on how to cut costs. This hardly seems like an acceptable arrangement.The most difficult realisation that all of the centres are faced with is that they are no longer able to meet the increased demand for their services. Unfortunately, they are forced to change their model of service delivery. Most of the clients cannot even see the financial counsellor face to face; they have to relay their personal circumstances to someone over the telephone. This situation is totally unacceptable.This government seems to be ignoring the work of the financial counselling services in this country and, worse still, ignoring the reasons why their workload has increased to such an alarming degree. With the introduction of the SACS award, all counsellors are now on incremental pay increases. With flat-lined funding, it is not taken into account that wages continue to rise along with all of the other expenses, such as phones, rent and electricity. The budget has not risen accordingly. It is a simple equation: without any increase in funding, the costs will continue to climb and the level of service will have to decline. I think it is time the minister took a good, hard look at the financial counselling services in this country and the fact that more and more people are driven, through economic circumstances, to use these services. Maybe the minister could find a few extra dollars to rectify this situation. Maybe this situation has not been brought to the minister's attention. I hope that this may go a little way to alleviating that problem.707522:20:007075Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—Today the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum tabled its advisory report on the constitutional alterations that were proposed by the Constitutional Convention and the legislation which the government drafted in response to that. It is now a matter of public record that I dissented in relation to the committee's report. Unfortunately, this afternoon there was not sufficient time for me to be able to set out some of the reasons. I commence my comments this evening by congratulating the chair of the committee, Bob Charles, on his chairmanship, and also the staff of the secretariat, led by Claressa Surtees. I believe the secretariat did a very good job in a difficult time frame and with a very large committee of some 18 people.The committee made a recommendation in relation to the long title. That recommendation was one that I strenuously opposed because it sought to suggest that the word `Australian' ought be placed in front of the word `President' whilst not using the word `Australian' or `Australia' to describe the position of Queen and Governor-General. The only reason, in my respectful submission to the Senate and also to the people of Australia, why one would seek to do that is to try to get some cheap jingoistic support for the proposal that is to be put before the Australian people. The fact that Her Majesty is the Queen of Australia is supported by a letter that happened to cross my desk today from none other than the Hon. E.G. Whitlam AC, QC, the former Labor Prime Minister of this country—a letter dated 27 July 1999 to the chair of the select committee. Whilst Mr Whitlam was arguing a different point, he makes this very telling point in the last paragraph of his letter:If the Constitution is not altered, Australia's head of state will in due course be—and listen to this—Charles III, by the Grace of God King of Australia.And he goes on to say `not Charles III, by the grace of God King of the Commonwealth of Australia'. He was wanting to make that point in relation to the insertion of the words `Commonwealth of Australia' in relation to the President. So even Gough Whitlam, one of the most avowed republicans in this country, acknowledges that the monarch is the Queen or King of Australia. The Governor-General, Sir William Deane, I think would be very surprised if it were suggested that he was anything other than Australian and that his position was indeed anything other than Australian. The position of Governor-General of Australia is set up in the Australian Constitution, drafted by Australians for Australians and voted for by Australians so that it became the Constitution. Therefore, to try to somehow differentiate the republic as being distinctly Australian yet referring to the Queen and the Governor-General as somehow not having unique Australian qualities was, in my considered view, disingenuous.I am glad to see that the proposed question that the Prime Minister announced late this afternoon removes the word `Australian' as a descriptor for the term `President' and, once again, puts into the question the method of appointment of the President, because it is fundamentally important that the people of Australia realise what they will be voting for. Not only will they be voting for a republic; they will also be voting for the type of republic that Australia might become. For those who are republicans to not want to put before the Australian people the type of republic that is being suggested is tantamount to an admission that the model is flawed. Indeed, that is my view, having had the opportunity of listening to witnesses, reading the Hansard and giving this matter very serious consideration.Let me say at this stage that I, in principle, am a republican. I support the symbolism of Australia having all its constitutional arrangements within its own boundaries and within its own sphere of influence. I was very much impressed by the former Labor government appointed Governor of Victoria, Richard McGarvie, in his proposal. I believe that would be a very workable minimalist model, and it would be fair to say that if his model at the Constitutional Convention had gained the support of the Australians for a constitutional monarchy that would now be the model that we would be voting for on 6 November, because the model we have before us for consideration was not supported by a majority of delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Sure, it was the most preferred option, but it failed to gain a 50 per cent majority of support from the Constitutional Convention. I believe Mr McGarvie's model, being the most minimalist approach to a republic which would have preserved the essential safety valve that the monarch provides in our system, would have gained overwhelming majority support if those who supported the current system would have voted for it as the lesser of the evils in their eyes that were being proposed.There is another matter that unfortunately needs to be dealt with. There were some disingenuous leaks to the media suggesting that the committee's views were unanimous. The only people who rejoiced in the committee's proposed question were those supporting the republic model proposed and being promoted by Mr Turnbull. Whilst I was somewhat constrained before the committee had tabled its report in being able to say where I stood on the issue, I was only able to say that it was speculation that it was a unanimous report. However, today when the report was tabled in the House of Representatives a speaker indicated to the House that there was not one dissenting voice when the final form of words of the proposed recommendation was put to the committee and then even after written dissents were taken into account only one member of this committee has formally dissented from the agreed long title.That is simply incorrect. Anybody reading the report and the dissenting reports will note that the honourable member for Wannon, David Hawker, and I signed a joint dissenting statement. It was very clear that it was a joint dissenting statement because it is headed `Dissenting report: Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz and Mr David Hawker MP'. At the end, there is the double signature block for both me and Mr Hawker. Might I say that divulging the private operations of the committee in relation to the unanimity or alleged unanimity was inappropriate, in my submission, but, given the circumstances, I feel obliged to place on record the circumstances of that.Yes, there was a committee meeting. I was unable to attend it. However, I did attend via a telephone hook-up for two hours. I was then unfortunately required to go elsewhere to host a lunch that was for the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the City of Hobart. Before calling off on the telephone, I indicated to the committee that I had other concerns and that I would raise them at 2 p.m. The committee, however, finished deliberations at 1.57 p.m., three minutes before 2 p.m., and therefore I was unable to put my point of view. While I accept that the committee should not have been held back in relation to my inability to be there, to try to claim that somehow that clothed the committee report with unanimity is, quite frankly, disingenuous and misleading. I take great exception to that and the fact that the workings of the committee were publicly divulged.Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.Documents70777077The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Aged Care Act—Determinations under section— 44—ACA Ch. 3 No. 2/1999-ACA Ch. 3 No. 11/1999. 48—ACA Ch. 3 No. 12/1999. 52—ACA Ch. 3 No. 13/1999.Apple and Pear Export Charge Act, Apple and Pear Levy Act, Australian Horticultural Corporation Act and Horticultural Policy Council Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 158.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan— Amendment No. 24. Approval of Amendment No. 24.Australian Hearing Services Act— Declared Hearing Services Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1). Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 139.Australian National University Act—Statute No. 257—Faculties (The Faculties) Statute 1998.Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 141.Australian Sports Drug Agency Act— Australian Sports Drug Agency Regulations—Australian Sports Drug Agency Drug Testing (Scheme A) Orders 1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 159.Banking Act— Determination of Restricted Expression in relation to a Financial Business, dated 28 June 1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 142.Census and Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Statement No. 2 of 1999.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders— Amendment of section 82, dated 30 July 1999. Directive—Part— 105, dated 24 [3], 25, 28, 29 [2] and 30 June; and 1 [11] and 2 [2] July 1999. 106, dated 9 June; and 2 [2] July 1999. 107, dated 30 June; and 2 July 1999. Exemption Nos CASA 16/1999, CASA 19/1999, CASA 21/1999-CASA 24/1999 and CASA 26/1999. Instrument Nos CASA 820/99, CASA 825/99, CASA 847/99, CASA 862/99, CASA 867/99 and CASA 884/99.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notice pursuant to paragraph 45(1)(a)—Establishment of ComLand Limited.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 143.Crimes Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 156.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 131 and 149.Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 124.Defence Act— Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations 1999/25-1999/30. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations Nos 9 and 10 of 1999.Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 152. Endangered Species Protection Act—Declaration under section 18 amending Schedule 1—99/ESP5.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment)—Export Control Orders No. 1 of 1999.Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 148.Farm Household Support Act— Restart Advice Scheme Amendment 1999 (No. 1). Restart Re-establishment Grant Scheme Amendment 1999 (No. 1).Financial Management and Accountability Act— Determination No. 1999/01—Centrelink Special Account. Financial Management and Accountability Orders (Amendment) 1999 (No. 2).Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act (No. 1)—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 144.Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 145.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 130.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 157.Hearing Services Administration Act— Hearing Services Amendment Rules of Conduct 1999 (No. 1). Hearing Services (Participants in the Voucher System) Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1). Hearing Services Voucher Amendment Rules 1999 (No. 1).Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 —Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 147.Interstate Road Transport Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 133.Life Insurance Act— Prudential Rules Nos 34, 36-46 and 48. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 146.Migration Act— Direction under section 499—Direction—Assessment of Required Assurances of Support—No. 10. Notice under subsection— 96(1)—Pool mark, dated 23 June 1999 [2]. 96(2)—Pass mark, dated 23 June 1999 [2]. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 132 and 155. Statements for period 1 January to 30 June 1999 under section— 48B [9]. 345 [7] 351 [28]. 417 [78].Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No. 2).Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 150.National Environment Protection Council Act—National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure, dated 2 July 1999, accompanied by the impact statement, summary of submissions and the Council's responses to submissions.National Health Act— Determination under Schedule 1—IHS7/1999-IHS9/1999. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 140.Native Title Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 151.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 154.Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 123. Rice Levy Specification (No. 1) 1999.Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act and Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 119.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 120-122.Private Health Insurance Incentives Act— Private Health Insurance Incentive (Form and Content of Claim) Determination—PHIIA 15-10(2)/1/1999. Private Health Insurance Incentive (Form and Content of Notification) Determination—PHIIA 11-20(2)/1/1999.Product Rulings PR 1999/72-1999/88.Public Service Act— Public Service (Defence) Determination 1999/5. Public Service Determination 1999/5. Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1999/41-1999/45.Radiocommunications Act— 900 MHz Band Plan Variation 1999 (No. 1). Citizen Band Radio Stations Class Licence Variation 1999 (No. 1). Handphone Stations (27MHz) Class Licence Variation 1999 (No. 1). Personal Marine Distress Beacons Class Licence Revocation 1999. Radiocommunications Devices (Compliance Labelling) Amendment Notice 1999 (No. 1). Radiocommunications Miscellaneous Devices Class Licence 1999. Radiocommunications Standard (Short Range Devices—9 kHz to 25 MHz Radio Equipment and 9 kHz to 30 MHz Inductive Loop Systems) 1999. Radiocommunications Standards Revocation 1999. VHF High Band Frequency Band Plan (148 to 174 MHz) Plan Variation 1999 (No. 1). VHF Mid Band Frequency Band Plan (70 to 87.5 MHz) Plan Variation 1999 (No. 1).Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Determination No. 1 of 1996 Amendment 1999 (No. 2).Rice Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 125.Sales Tax Determination STD 1999/4.States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act—Amendment No. 99/1.Student Assistance Act—Determination No. 1999/1—Determination of Education Institutions and Courses under subsections 3(1) and 5D(1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973 .Superannuation (Excluded Funds) Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 134.Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act— Declarations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 135-137. Determination—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 138.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 11/1999.Taxation Determination— TD 94/48 (Addendum). TD 1999/36-TD 1999/40.Taxation Ruling— SST 16. TR 94/22 (Addendum). TR 96/16 (Addendum), TR 96/17 (Addendum) and TR 96/18 (Addendum). TR 1999/7-TR 1999/11.Therapeutic Goods Act—Therapeutic Goods Order No. 64.Trade Marks Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 153.Wheat Industry Fund Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 127.Wheat Marketing Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 128.Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 126.Wool International Act and Wool International Privatisation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 129.7079The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 31 December 1998 and 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statements of compliance—Department of Veterans' Affairs.Proclamations7079Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following Acts and provisions of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified:Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act 1998 —1 July 1999 (Gazette No. S 288, 30 June 1999).Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Act 1999 —1 August 1999 (Gazette No. S 349, 28 July 1999).Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Act 1998 —1 July 1999 (Gazette No. S 289, 30 June 1999).Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1999 —Items 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 1—1 July 1999 (Gazette No. S 286, 30 June 1999).Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 1998 —Item 86 of Schedule 2—1 July 1999 (Gazette No. S 289, 30 June 1999).Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1999 —Transfer date—1 July 1999 (Gazette No. S 283, 29 June 1999).Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 —Schedule 1 (except items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10) and Schedule 2—22 July 1999 (Gazette No. S 337, 22 July 1999). Answers to Questions on Notice7080The following answers to questions were circulated:7080(Question No. 548)5487080Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.7080Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Total expenditure on the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year is estimated at $1,300,430.(2) The department's original budgeted estimate for the 1997-98 financial year was $1,354,000.(3) (a) Consultants were engaged to assist in the conversion of the existing Treasury cash budget to accruals. Consultants engaged included qualified accountants and professional presenters involved in the training and education of Treasury staff. Programmers and technical consultants were engaged to develop new systems to support both the upgrade of old technology and to install new technology and associated software.(b) Consultancy firms engaged by Treasury were Coopers and Lybrand, Assist P/L and Catalyst Interactive P/L.(4) (a) The total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services was approximately 124 days. The number of contractors working on any one project varied daily, depending on the requirements and complexities of the work being performed at any given time.(b) Contractors were paid on varying rates per day depending on their qualifications, whether part-time or full-time, term of contract and period of involvement.(c) The total cost(s) of each consultancy for 1997-98 was as follows:CompanyTotal cost(s)Coopers and Lybrand$34,350Assist P/L$108,575Catalyst Interactive P/L$35,500(5) (a) The estimated expenditure for consultants for 1998-99 is $387,800.(b) A total of $352,800 has been expended on outside consultants from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999.(6) The estimated total expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year is $1,062,940. 7080(Question No. 593)5937080Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 16 March 1999:(1) Have a number of providers of high-level residential aged care been replacing qualified enrolled nurses with `aged care workers' who have no formal training.(2) What was the ratio of qualified nursing staff, both registered and enrolled nurses, to residents in high-level aged care facilities, by state, in the 1996-97, 1997-98 financial years and to date in the 1998-99 financial year.(3) Under the Aged Care Act what mandatory requirements are placed on providers to employ qualified nursing staff.(4) Can a provider operate a high-level aged care facility without any qualified nursing staff present.(5) Are the daily care subsidies paid by the Commonwealth to providers based on the award rates for qualified nurses.(6) Have the dependency levels of residents in high-level aged care facilities increased.(7) Can the Minister confirm that Principle 3.8 `Nursing Services' is not being applied to low-level care facilities that retain residents who require high level care.7081Herron, 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), (2) and (3) The Commonwealth Aged Care Act 1997/Part 4.1/Division 54-1(b) states that providers of aged care must `maintain an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff to ensure that the care needs of care recipients are met.' Service providers must be able to demonstrate this to the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency. The Quality of Care Principles of the Aged Care Act 1997 are measured by outcomes and therefore, the Act does not prescribe ratios of nursing staff to residents.The Aged Care Act 1997, Quality of Care Principles, Schedule 1/3.8, lists complex nursing procedures which, for high care residents, must be carried out by a registered nurse or other professional appropriate to the service (eg. medical practitioner, stoma therapist etc). The Principles also state that, for these services, `Initial and on-going assessment, planning and management of care for residents, [must be] carried out by a registered nurse'.(4) All high care residents must by virtue of Schedule 1/3.8 in the Aged Care Act 1997, Quality of Care Principles have `Initial and on-going assessment, planning and management of care for residents, carried out by a registered nurse'. In addition, this Schedule lists complex nursing procedures and states they must be carried out by a registered nurse or other professional appropriate to the service (eg. medical practitioner, stoma therapist etc). (5) The care subsidies are based on resident care needs as assessed through the Resident Classification Scale (RCS). The Commonwealth pays a higher level of subsidy in relation to residents with higher care needs.Under the RCS, all residents are assessed against Question 18—Technical and Complex Nursing Procedures, which itemises complex nursing services under List 2. Such procedures `will be carried out by a registered nurse or other health professional appropriate to the particular procedure, based on initial and ongoing assessment, planning and management of the care recipient's care by a registered nurse. Examples include medical practitioners, stoma therapists etc.'If a resident requires these complex nursing services and, hence the input of a trained nurse, their RCS rating will increase and consequently so will the subsidy paid to the facility under the RCS.(6) The introduction of a new Resident Classification Scale in October 1997 makes it difficult to compare dependency levels of current aged care facility clients with clients assessed under the previous instruments.It is, however, possible to compare the dependency levels of people already in residential aged care facilities with the dependency levels of people entering care since October 1997. When such an assessment is done, the dependency level is shown to have increased by 1.54%.(7) Principle 3.8 Nursing Services applies to all high care residents who need the listed procedures regardless of the type of aged care facility in which they are living.7081(Question No. 683)6837081O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 April 1999:(1) Are Airservices Australia (ASA) air traffic controllers required by the Air Navigation Act 1920 to report any incidents they witness within 48 hours of that incident occurring.(2) Are the controllers also required by the Manual of Air Traffic Services to report any incidents they witness.(3) Did air traffic control (ATC) team leaders witness an incident involving a Cessna twin-engine aircraft and a Navajo aircraft at Cairns Airport on 28 January 1999.(4) Did those ATC team leaders report the incident as is required by the Air Navigation Act and the manual. (5) If those ATC team leaders failed to report the incident, what action did ASA and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation take.(6) Were the controllers involved in the above incident suspended from duty; if so: (a) when were they suspended; and (b) what was the duration of the suspension.(7) Did ASA undertake an investigation into the above incident.(8) (a) What were the findings of that inquiry; and (b) can a copy be provided of the subsequent report.(9) (a) Who undertook the ASA inquiry; and (b) what were the qualifications and experience of the ASA investigator.(10) Did ASA ensure that the ASA investigator was from another ATC unit in order to ensure an absence of local bias in the investigation; if not, why not.(11) Did the ASA investigator interview all or any of the controllers who were on duty at Cairns Airport at the time of the incident; if not (a) who was not interviewed as part of the inquiry; and (b) what was the reason that those interviews did not take place.7082Macdonald, 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:Airservices has advised that:(1) Yes.(2) Yes.(3) The ATC team leaders did not witness an incident involving a Cessna twin-engined aircraft and a Navajo aircraft at Cairns Airport on 28 January 1999.(4) No incident was reported by Team Leaders for 28 January 1999 (see (3) above).(5) The alleged incident at Cairns Airport on 28 January 1999 was not reported to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) by Air Traffic Control team leaders as the team leaders on duty did not observe an incident. The allegation was made to BASI on 3 February 1999 as a Confidential Aviation Incident Report (CAIR).(6) N/A.(7) Airservices undertook a limited investigation following discussions with BASI.(8) (a)&(b) Radar data was not available and examination of the audio recordings shed no light on the CAIR report. Accordingly no formal report was completed.(9) (a) The Terminal Area Stream Specialist and the Tower Stream Specialist.(b) Both are qualified and experienced air traffic controllers who hold qualifications in incident investigations(10) No. It was considered that the issues raised by the CAIR report did not require an investigator from another unit.(11) (a) and (b) The on-duty team leaders in the tower were interviewed and could not recall any incident. Airservices Cairns offered to conduct more extensive investigations and interviews on behalf of BASI. As the radar data was not available BASI determined that further interviews were not warranted.7082(Question No. 720)7207082Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 6 May 1999:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the former Minister for Science and Technology (Mr McGauran), not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, between his appointment in March 1996 and his resignation in September 1997.(2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose; (c) who were the attendees; (d) what was the cost; and (e) what was the venue.7082Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 17(2) There are two occasions where the Department has paid for lunch and the only attendee has been a journalist. Amount paid: $147.00(a) When(b) Purpose(c) Attendees(d) Cost(e) Venue7/5/96Dinner2 industry representatives167.15Parliament House, Canberra27/5/96Dinner2 science representative198.00Parliament House, Canberra 28/5/96Dinner1 science representative78.70Parliament House, Canberra18/9/96Budget briefings—Science Awareness Group.26 attendees, including 1 Departmental officer177.50Parliament House, Canberra4/11/96Dinner 2 attendees105.45Parliament House, Canberra8/11/96Working lunch—New Images program 1 attendee59.50Parliament House, Canberra9/12/96Official farewell dinner—Chairman of ASTEC19 attendees, including 4 ASTEC Secretariat officers1,254.25Parliament House, Canberra11/12/96Departmental End-of-Year Review dinner (hosted by the Secretary)Departmental SES1,265.00Old Parliament House16/12/96Working lunch—R&D Start program2 industry representatives180.00Ristorante Roberto, Melbourne, Victoria28/1/97Working lunch—Portfolio issues1 journalist 45.00Mamma Du Caffe, Southgate, Victoria30/1/97Working lunch—portfolio issues1 journalist102.00Walters Wine Bar, South Melbourne, Victoria11/2/97Australia Prize Presentation Dinner (hosted by the Prime Minister)Nominators, nominees, Committee members, State and Federal parliamentarians, academics, scientists, State and Federal senior public servants55,105.00The Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra16/4/97Official opening of the new IP Australia office in Discovery HouseThe Governor-General, the former Minister for Administrative Services, Mrs Matilda House of the Ngunnawal Aboriginal Land Council, senior public servants, 40 invited guests including former Commissioners of Patents, contractors and consultants involved in the construction of the building, representatives of customer groups and about 250 IP Australia staff3,500.00Forecourt of Discovery House, Phillip 29/5/97Prime Minister's Science Engineering Council (PMSEC) members' dinner10 PMSEC members621.00Parliament House, Canberra18/6/97Official farewell dinner—Chief Science Adviser12 attendees784.13Parliament House, Canberra30/7/97Working lunch—gene technology2 attendees, including 1 Ministerial staff member204.30Marchetti Tuscan Grill, Melbourne, Victoria5/9/97Working lunch—ANSTO15 attendees, including, 3 Departmental staff, 3 Ministerial staff, 1 ANSTO staff563.00Hyatt Hotel, Canberra7083(Question No. 721)7217083Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 6 May 1999:(1) On how many occasions did the department pay for dinners or functions, both in restaurants and elsewhere, attended by the Minister, not including those paid for and approved by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, between his appointment in October 1998 and 30 March 1999 (2) In each instance: (a) when did the dinner or function take place; (b) what was the purpose; (c) who were the attendees; (d) what was the cost; and (e) what was the venue.7083Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The department has not paid for any dinners or functions attended by the Minister where hospitality was extended and where the attendees were ministerial colleagues or ministerial staff or journalists only.On four occasions the department paid for functions which were hosted or co-hosted by the Minister where hospitality was extended. DatePurposeAttendeesCost ($)Venue8/3/99Briefing on the National Museum of AustraliaAttendees included media, representatives from stakeholder organisations, senior Commonwealth and ACT departmental officers and site workers.$4,485Acton Peninsula12/11/98Launch of National Portrait Gallery exhibition200-250 people including sponsors, media, representatives of the diplomatic community and cultural institutions, local artists, senior departmental officers.$5,590Old Parliament House4/3/99Launch of the National Portrait Gallery's permanent collection400-450 people including media, sponsors, Prime Minister and former Labor Prime Minister, representatives of cultural attractions, the tourism and hospitality industries and the arts community, senior departmental officers.$7,318Old Parliament House2/12/98Pre film screening cocktail receptionFilmmakers, Members and Senators, senior departmental and portfolio agency officers.$2,250Parliament House7084(Question No. 1008)10087084O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 21 May 1999:(1) Is a working parent who lives in a permanent relationship with a partner who has a child from a previous relationship and a child to the present relationship entitled to claim both children and his partner as dependants for the purposes of the Child Support (Assessment) Act; if so, what benefits is the parent entitled to through Centrelink.(2) Are there any limits placed on Centrelink allowances payable to the second family; if so, what are the limits.7084Newman, 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) Formula assessments of child support are based on the income of both natural and/or adoptive parents, and take into account a parent's duty to maintain any other natural children. Therefore, a parent who is paying child support for a child of a previous relationship, and who has a natural child in a new relationship, can claim that child as a dependant for the purposes of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.If a person forms a relationship with a partner who already has a child in their care, the partner remains entitled to receive child support from the child's parent. The child support will still be based on both of the parents' incomes. The new partner's income will not be taken into account.The circumstances of parents and children may change in many ways, as new relationships are formed, but the underlying principle of the Child Support Scheme is that the natural and/or adoptive parents remain financially responsible for supporting their children. Accordingly, the fact that a parent has formed a new relationship does not, in itself, have any bearing upon his or her child support assessment.The working parent could be entitled to Parenting Payment, Family Allowance Childcare Assistance and Family Tax Payment from Centrelink, subject to meeting the income and assets test and all other requirements. However, only one of a couple can receive Parenting Payment, so normally the non working partner would claim parenting payment and be eligible for a higher rate. Similarly Family Allowance and Family Tax Payment are usually paid to the primary carer. When calculating the family income for Family Allowance and Childcare Assistance, 50% of any child support paid by the partner would be deducted from the family income.(2) Otherwise, Centrelink entitlements payable to a second family are identical to those payable to other families.From 1 January 1999 child support payers with second families are able to claim 50% of any child support paid as a deduction from the household income used for determining the family's entitlement of Family Tax Payment and Childcare Assistance.7084(Question No. 1088)10887084Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:Following the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement:(1) How much of the following is protected in: (a) formal reserves; and (b) dedicated reserves in Tasmania: (i) Eucalyptus regnans (forest community), (ii) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (forest community), (iii) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (forest community), and (iv) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (forest community). (Please note that this question differs from question on notice no. 513 because it asks about forest communities, not just old-growth).(2) How much of the following is in multiple-use forests in Tasmania: (a) Eucalyptus regnans (forest community); (b) Eucalyptus regnans (old-growth only); (c) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (forest community); (d) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (old-growth only); (e) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (forest community); (f) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (old-growth only); (g) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (forest community); and (h) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (old-growth only).(3) How much of the following is in provisional coupes in Tasmania: (a) Eucalyptus regnans (forest community); (b) Eucalyptus regnans (old-growth only); (c) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (forest community); (d) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (old-growth only); (e) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (forest community); (f) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (old-growth only); (g) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (forest community); and (h) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (old-growth only).7085Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) includes a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) Forest Reserve System of Formal Reserves, Informal Reserves and values managed by prescription. Boundaries of some new reserves are still being finalised by the Tasmanian Government in accordance with the RFA. Noting this the following are therefore approximate areas.(1) (a) (i) Eucalyptus regnans forest community—10,200 ha; (ii) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) forest community—78,000 ha; (iii) Eucalyptus delegatensis forest community—69,600 ha; (iv) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) forest community—450 ha.(1) (b) (ii) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) forest community—33,500 ha; (iii) Eucalyptus delegatensis forest community—55,900 ha; (iv) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) forest community—80 ha.The information for questions 2 and 3 is not part of the jointly owned RFA data and has been provided by Forestry Tasmania.(2) This data is based on the Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA) forest mapping and Multiple Use Forest Land areas as at June 1999 (excluding RFA reserves yet to be proclaimed). Note includes informal reserves within Multiple Use Forest Land.(a) Eucalyptus regnans (forest community)—59,400 ha; (b) Eucalyptus regnans (old-growth only)—8,200 ha; (c) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (forest community)—264,700 ha; (d) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (old-growth only)—42,300 ha; (e) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (forest community)—163,500 ha; (f) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (old-growth only)—42,300 ha; (g) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (forest community)—800 ha; (h) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (old-growth only)—20 ha.(3) This data derived from the CRA forest community mapping and Forestry Tasmania's provisional coupes as at June 1999. Actual coupe boundaries often vary from provisional boundaries following final operational planning.(a) Eucalyptus regnans (forest community)—47,300 ha; (b) Eucalyptus regnans (old-growth only)—5,800 ha; (c) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (forest community)—195 400 ha; (d) Eucalyptus obliqua (wet) (old-growth only)—25,800 ha; (e) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (forest community)—128,200 ha; (f) Eucalyptus delegatensis (wet) (old-growth only)—35,600 ha; (g) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (forest community)—550 ha*; (h) Eucalyptus viminalis (wet) (old-growth only)—10 ha*.* NB Wet E. viminalis forest is a community to be managed under the RFA for protection on public land outside reserves where prudent and feasible. Any actual areas found within provisional coupes are to be excluded from the final coupe where prudent and feasible.7085(Question No. 1090)10907085Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) When the Assistant Treasurer approved Sun Healthcare's entry into Australia in August 1997 was the Assistant Treasurer advised of the incongruity between the claims of inadequate staffing and substandard quality of care in Sun Healthcare's American facilities on the one hand, while Sun Healthcare's chairman claimed there was plenty of money in the system.(2) What steps were taken by the department and the Assistant Treasurer to satisfy themselves about the quality of care issues prior to approving the entry of Sun Healthcare into Australia in August 1997.(3) What steps does the Government plan to take to protect Australians from the business practices of this company now that the serious problems consequent to Sun Healthcare's business practices have been exposed by a United States Senate hearing, concerned citizens and the press in the United State of America.(4) Does the Government plan to modify the process for approving the entry of multinational heath care corporations into Australia in the light of experiences with National Medical Enterprises (now called Tenet Healthcare), Generale de Sante Internationale, Columbia/HCA and Sun Healthcare.7086Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) Extensive consultations were undertaken by the Department on behalf of the Government.(3) A proposal by Sun Healthcare to acquire additional businesses or shares in Australia would be subject to an examination process with the relevant State/Territory Governments and Commonwealth agencies being consulted.(4) Under the present arrangements the State/Territory health authorities have sole responsibility for the licensing of private hospitals. This includes the responsibility to assess an applicant's suitability to hold such a licence. The issue of a Commonwealth provider number for private health insurance purposes is contingent on the facility possessing such a licence.In examining proposals for foreign interests to invest in Australian health care the Foreign Investment Review Board will continue to consult with State/Territory Governments and other relevant authorities.7086(Question No. 1092)10927086O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) How many Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) officers are employed at O'Connor Meats (establishment 1265) in Pakenham, Victoria.(2) Is the plant closed as a result of an industrial dispute; if so, how long has the plant been closed.(3) What is the estimated cost of employing the AQIS officers at the plant while it is closed.7086Alston, 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) O'Connor Meats was under contract for the supply of six meat inspectors and one veterinary officer from AQIS at the time of the closure.(2) It is the Minister's understanding the plant is closed owing to a failure to conclude enterprise bargaining negotiations with the workforce. The closure commenced on 5 March 1999.(3) AQIS costs are approximately $7450 per week.7086(Question No. 1093)10937086O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) Is the meat works at Rockdale (establishment 517) the first plant to participate in the Australian Meat Safety Enhancement Program (MSEP); if so, when were the new arrangements put in place at that plant.(2) How many Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) officers and how many company employees engaged in inspection procedures were employed at the plant prior to the introduction of the MSEP.(3) How many AQIS officers and company employees engaged in inspection services are employed at the plant after the introduction of the MSEP.(4) What are the savings from the new inspection arrangements to the plant operator.(5) How much product processed at establishment 517 was condemned over the 24-month period leading up to the introduction of the MSEP.(6) How much product has been condemned at this establishment since the introduction of the MSEP.(7) Did the plant operator lodge a complaint with AQIS about the condemnation of product prior to the introduction of the MSEP; if so: (a) what was the basis of the complaint; and (b) what action did AQIS take as a result of the complaint.(8) Did the plant operator lodge a complaint with AQIS about the condemnation of product after the introduction of the MSEP; if so: (a) what was the basis of the complaint; and (b) what action did AQIS take as a result of the complaint.7086Alston, 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) No Australian plant has commenced operations under the Meat Safety Enhancement Program. Rockdale is expected to be one of the first plants to adopt MSEP sometime during July/August.(2) Under the existing inspection requirements, AQIS employs two meat inspectors and one veterinary officer for each shift at the Rockdale plant. No company employees are engaged in inspection procedures.(3) After MSEP is implemented, AQIS would retain one meat inspector and one veterinary officer per shift. The company will employ two persons with meat inspection qualifications, per shift, to undertake the sorting function.(4) The motivation for developing MSEP has been to enhance food safety outcomes. The move towards HACCP-based inspection has required a considerable investment by the meat industry. The issue of cost savings has thus been a secondary consideration. AQIS has no information available about the costs to the company from the new inspection arrangements.(5) From July 1997 to June 1999, there have been 308 carcases condemned at Rockdale(6) The company is not yet operating under MSEP.(7) Plant management at Rockdale raised the condemnation of some carcase parts by an AQIS inspector. This matter was resolved at the plant level with the AQIS veterinarian reporting the outcome of his investigation to the Area Office in Sydney. The review by the plant veterinarian confirmed that the decision taken by the inspector was correct and no action by AQIS was necessary.(8) The company is not yet operating under MSEP.7087(Question No. 1094)10947087O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) How many Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) officers are employed at Midfield Meat (establishments 180 and 246) at Warrnambool, Victoria.(2) Are these officers permanent employees or contract employees.(3) If they are contract employees: (a) how long have they been engaged; and (b) what is the cost of their employment.7087Alston, 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) Midfield Meat has a contract with AQIS for the supply of twelve meat inspectors and one veterinary officer.(2) Of the twelve meat inspectors four are permanent employees and eight are contractors. The permanent employees are located at establishment 180 and the contractors at establishment 246.(3) The eight contractors were engaged when establishment 246 was registered for export operations on 4 May 1999. Contractor costs are approximately $8,500 per week. This includes some contract costs for relief purposes at establishment 180.7087(Question No. 1099)10997087O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 9 July 1999:(1) When did the Latrobe Council in Tasmania first write to the National Transmission Agency (NTA) about difficulties with television reception for many residents in Port Sorell, Shearwater and Hawley.(2) Did the NTA receive any submissions from any other organisations or individuals about the poor television reception in those areas; if so: (a) who made those submissions; and (b) when were they received by the NTA.(3) Did the NTA identify a site for a transmitter to address the problems facing these communities.(4) (a) When did the NTA commence the process of site identification and transmitter development; and (b) when was the site located.(5) Were any contracts let as part of the process of locating a transmitter in the region; if so: (a) what was the nature of each contract; (b) what was the cost; and (c) was each contract completed.(6) If some contracts were not completed: (a) were they still paid out; and (b) what happened with regard to any unfinished work associated with each contract.(7) (a) What expenditure was incurred by the NTA in progressing the establishment of a transmitter to assist these communities; and (b) can a breakdown be provided of those costs.(8) (a) When did the NTA cease work on the establishment of the transmitter, and (b) what was the justification for not completing the project.7087Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Latrobe Council wrote on one occasion to the National Transmission Agency (NTA) about the television reception in the Port Sorell district. The Latrobe Council letter is dated 9 February 1999. (2) (a and b) The NTA received three submissions concerning television reception in the Port Sorell area:The Hon Dick Adams MP, the Member for Lyons, who met with the NTA on 1 June 1995;A letter from Mr John Robertson of Port Sorell (received by the NTA on 24 October 1996); andA letter from Senator Kay Denman, dated 17 March 1997, representing Mr Bob Walker of Port Sorrel, Mrs J Meehan of Shearwater, and Mrs Tuner of Northdown.(3) The NTA identified a number of sites in the area that could provide television signals, with varying degrees of efficiency, to the communities. Of these sites, Hawk Trap Hill was the preferred location. A site adjacent to the Port Sorell reservoir was potentially suitable.(4) (a) The Port Sorell area was identified as likely to require translator facilities during planning for Band II Clearance which commenced in 1991. The NTA began actively considering potential sites for the establishment of the translator in 1994, concurrent with the commencement of ABC TV simulcast UHF transmissions from Mt Barrow, Launceston.(b) The first and best translator location, Hawk Trap Hill, was identified in 1995. In August 1995, an NTA field survey team conducted propagation tests from this site. On the basis of the tests, the NTA determined that a translator located on Hawk Trap Hill could receive a program input signal suitable for retransmission and would provide good UHF television coverage in and around Port Sorrel, Shearwater and Hawley Beach.The NTA was unable to complete the acquisition of access to Hawk Trap Hill because the land, which was designated as a public recreation area, was the habitat for Spyridium obcordatum. The plant was listed as vulnerable under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.The NTA consequently investigated a number of other potential sites. Of those sites, the only viable alternative, near the Port Sorell reservoir, would not provide the degree of coverage offered by Hawk Trap Hill. It would require a much taller mast than Hawk Trap Hill, and the installation of microwave links for program input, thereby being more visually intrusive and costing more than twice as much as would a facility on Hawk Trap Hill.(5) (a) (b) (c) and (6) (a) (b) (c) There were no contracts made to provide translator facilities in the area.(7) (a) (b) The expenditure incurred by the NTA to identify and acquire a suitable translator site at Port Sorell is not separately identified in NTA records. A breakdown of those costs cannot therefore be provided.(8) (a) The NTA effectively ceased work on the Port Sorell translator during the later half of 1998.(b) After the Government confirmed its intention to sell the National Transmission Network (NTN) on 29 July 1998, the NTA undertook a review of projects in hand to determine which ones could be completed prior to the sale. As the NTA had not been able to acquire a suitable site at Port Sorrel, it determined that practical completion of the translator, or the letting of contracts for later completion, were not possible in the time remaining. The NTA therefore directed its resources to such projects as could be brought to completion.7088(Question No. 1100)11007088O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(a) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(b) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98, and 1998-99 financial years.(c) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.7088Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Trade has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(a) Austrade administers the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme which in the years nominated provided grants to organisations in the Bass federal electorate.(b)Electorate of BassNumber of claimantsAmount claimed $Payment made $1997-98493,13892,0681998-995106,416* Payment has not been finalised for Financial Year 1998-99(c) EMDG has an annual budget of $150 million, however there is no budget target for each electorate. We expect grants in 1999-2000 to be similar to previous years.7089(Question No. 1114)11147089O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 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 year.7089Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:It should be noted that;A number of activities are funded to one organisation which operates on a state-wide basis, with offices in the south, north and north-west of the state. As the northern office is in Launceston, the allocation to Bass is stated as one third of the total funding to this organisation.There is also a CDEP activity which operates on a state-wide basis. The allocation apportioned to Bass represents the proportion of participants who live in the electorate.The 1999/2000 year's allocation have not been fully committed to activities as yet, therefore the total level of funding for the electorate of Bass may alter later in the financial year.Level of FundingProgram1997-981998-991999-00 as at 24/6/98Art & Cultural60,219217,202100,276Business Development82,000103,5000Community Housing & Infrastructure899,0201,729,490729,544CDEP070,200440,173Language Maintenance58,33375,00045,000Legal Services288,680292,638300,494Link Up20,45329,05738,957Public Affairs9,30027,78921,201TOTAL1,418,0052,544,8761,675,6457089(Question No. 1120)11207089Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 17 June 1999:With reference to the 1999 accreditation status, quality improvement and accreditation system for long day care centres: What number and proportion of long day care centres are: (a) accredited for: (i) 1 year between reviews, (ii) 2 years between reviews, (iii) 3 years between reviews; (b) working through a plan of action; and (c) in self-study, in review, in moderation or waiting for a decision by the National Childcare Accreditation Council. [Can the date be provided for the Commonwealth, with sub-totals for each state and territory, and sub-totals for private and community-based long day care.]7089Newman, 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:These figures are based on figures provided by the National Childcare Accreditation Council. Due to the cyclical nature of the accreditation process, the information given is based on figures as at 24 June 1999.NATAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal1105484589256180236383919032742Plan Of Action41227268Newly registered(not yet assessed)19290309Total106030844144NSWAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal1271782052218310433338001133Plan Of Action58388Newly registered(not yet assessed)7106113Total39312501643VICAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal12813716521640563205308513Plan Of Action114556Newly registered(not yet assessed)56873Total265598863QLDAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal 11679952542473115533648Plan Of Action75057Newly registered(not yet assessed)26466Total145768913SAAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal199182641037273145Plan Of Action134Newly registered(not yet assessed)11314Total89102191WAAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal 19667523912358133191Plan Of Action103747Newly registered(not yet assessed)32831Total83273356TASAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal 12242223222345Plan Of Action11Newly registered(not yet assessed)134Total282856ACTAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal 14111521233222850Plan Of Action246Newly registered(not yet assessed)22Total294776NTAccreditation status (Number of years between reviews)CommunityPrivateTotal 110212222312517Plan Of Action459Newly registered(not yet assessed)66Total281846At 24 June 1999 there were: 360 centres awaiting review; 163 centres in moderation; 197 centres awaiting a council decision.The Quality Improvement and Accreditation System is a system that both accredits centres and encourages a process of constant self-improvement. Therefore, centres are encouraged to constantly review and evaluate their child care practices and to institute plans for improvement.714 centres are due to submit formal self-study reports to the National Childcare Accreditation Council in the period July to December 1999.7093(Question No. 1121)11217093Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 17 June 1999:What is the number and proportion of total enrolments in long day care for the following groups: (a) child with disability; (b) parent with disability; (c) referred because child at risk; (d) Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; (e) non-English speaking background; and (f) no special needs. [Can the data be provided for the Commonwealth, with sub-totals for each state and territory, and sub-totals for private and community-based long day care.]7093Newman, 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:The information is set out in the tables below. The most recent information relates to August 1997. Data for 1999 will be available early in 2000.Private Long Day Care—Number and Proportion of Additional Needs Children by State and TerritoryAdditional Needs ChildrenNSW%VIC%Qld%SA%WA%Tas%NT%ACT%Australia%Child with disability13472443110582108226421214127132632Parent with disability52112641649146112611013012016311Referred because child at risk18201610189012055050182806300Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander701113601439256123415058819126481Non English speaking background1259716526014424164717127387347710438162443012No special needs62100803204784606518961609014458881617945777923278217993785Total specified *77206381686801168411636717217332823211870Not specified10290000030Total Children77207100381681006803910068411001636710017211007331002823100211900100* Note: Some of these children may be in more than one categorySource: 1997 Census of Child Care ServicesCommunity Long Day Care—Number and Proportion of Additional Needs Children by State and TerritoryAdditional Needs ChildrenNSW%VIC%Qld%SA%WA%Tas%NT%ACT%Australia%Child with disability8423379223222052131280215137219212Parent with disability27911671991641721170812117271Referred because child at risk2041830350240551100111804301 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander4592940335392115121701431112113032 Non English speaking background590720365919113510502691039831068290151260615No special needs2177175153897810108857530905569813476941017791513816637380Total specified *2922119610118758395683936991293187182802Not specified000000000Total Children2922110019610100118751008395100683910036991001293100187110082802100* Note: Some of these children may be in more than one category7094(Question No. 1122)11227094Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 17 June 1999:(1) Can a breakdown be provided, by age of children currently enrolled in long day care.(2) Can sub-totals be provided for each state and territory, and for and for community-based and private long day care.7094Newman, 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:There are no data available for 1996 and 1998 as no Census of Child Care Services for private and community long day care centres was undertaken in those years. Data from the 1999 Census of Child Care Services will be available in early 2000.Tables from the 1995 and 1997 Child Care Censuses are below.1995 Private Long Day Care Services—Number of Children by State and TerritoryAges of ChildrenNSWVicQldSAWATasNTACTAustralia< 1 yr89712041251218514421111442501 yr296038655229875148520863426151112 yrs8677577111808119429032299167559313783 yrs2028667991710213983420340152650501474 yrs230335722150968752629309108621483935 yrs5655194166541159909316167156316+ yrs1740130228642057853917807035Total Children63249266066000348811272413305352617171945Source: 1995 Census of Child Care Services. These figures differ from those previously published due to estimation for non-respondents.1995 Community Long Day Care Services—Number of Children by State and TerritoryAges ofChildrenNSWVicQldSAWATasNTACTAustralia< 1 yr554719403457300151539027271 yr25272870139114881227530213251104972 yrs54164237222922061797884324306174013 yrs814851852997232620551063340397225124 yrs87424390274317201543802290294205225 yrs180211861253873802303311350856+ yrs77618557304060359Total Children2726718649111028342733337001259145179104Source: 1995 Census of Child Care Services. These figures differ from those previously published due to estimation for non-respondents.1997 Private Long Day Care Services—Number of Children by State and TerritoryAges of ChildrenNSWVicQldSAWATasNTACTAustralia< 1 yr122617011490301569311515754891 yr46855537672212262171177109476211022 yrs1219385381333017123702421186622407043 yrs2317995121785419484161484238662580384 yrs2574081171654212553217328151601559525 yrs745630357589157119611824227198016+ yrs *2730172945132431351163117810815Total Children77207381686803968411636717217332823211900* Includes a small number whose age was not specified.Source: 1997 Census of Child Care Services. These figures have been weighted for non-respondents.1997 Community Long Day Care Services—Number of Children by State and TerritoryAges of ChildrenNSWVicQldSAWATasNTACTAustralia< 1 yr6637485303502911383913128911 yr30093139162715591259545211316116652 yrs61514619255621661815923346452190283 yrs835352533126235118831021396472228564 yrs87134424271217481280822233411203435 yrs223613031216146276225448255286+ yrs96124107743624247492Total Children2922119610188758395683936991293187182802Source: 1997 Census of Child Care Services. These figures have been weighted for non-respondents.7095(Question No. 1123)11237095Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 1999:With reference to the continuing conflict in Sri Lanka between the Tamil resistance and the Sri Lankan Government:(1) What is the level of Australian Government assistance to the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka.(2) What measures has the Government taken to ensure that those funds are accounted for.(3) What is the Australian Government doing to address the humanitarian cost of the Sri Lankan Government's economic blockade on the Tamil population.7095Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Australian Government's program of development cooperation with the Government of Sri Lanka was an estimated $10 million in financial year 1998/99 (final figures will not be available until some months after the end of the financial year). Of this $10 million, an estimated $5.6 million was allocated for assistance to the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The bulk of this assistance, around $4 million, was provided as emergency food aid (Australian wheat) for Internally Displaced Persons. An additional $1.5 million was dispersed through the Australian Community Resettlement Program. This program supports mines awareness, demining, trauma counselling, basic education, water supply and sanitation and income generation activities in resettlement areas in conflict affected areas. A further $150,000 was channelled towards humanitarian assistance through the AusAID-NGO Cooperation Program including assistance for widowed mothers. The Australian Government anticipates a similar level of expenditure on humanitarian activities in Sri Lanka in financial year 1999/2000.(2) The Australian Government ensures that these funds are accounted for by requiring those agencies receiving funds to sign agreements which comply with AusAID's financial reporting requirements. Australia only supports those agencies which have been approved to work in conflict-affected areas by the Government of Sri Lanka and which can demonstrate a capacity to provide regular reporting against agreed project outputs. Australia's support is provided as food aid, accountable cash grants or contributions to United Nations agencies, international and local non-governmental organisations. The activities are closely monitored by AusAID which has an officer posted in Colombo. The activities are also monitored by the Government of Sri Lanka. (3) Although the Australian Government is aware of claims by the Tamil community of an economic blockade, the Government has no evidence to suggest that the Sri Lankan Government has imposed such a blockade.7096(Question No. 1125)11257096Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator Ferris5L6SALP10 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) Has the attention of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) been drawn to donations to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) from Savengal Pty Ltd and Snowdeal Pty Ltd, both of Tulong Avenue, Oatlands, New South Wales, detailed in the amended 1997-98 return submitted by the New South Wales branch of the ALP.(2) Is the AEC aware that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) database appears to have no record of a company by the name of Savengal Pty Ltd and that the address for Snowdeal Pty Ltd in the New South Wales ALP's 1997/98 political party annual return is different from that on the ASIC database.(3) Can the AEC explain these apparent irregularities; if so, what is the explanation; if not, what action will the AEC take to ensure that the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act have been complied with.7096Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) An amendment to the 1997/98 annual disclosure return for the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party disclosing receipts from Savengal Pty Ltd and Snowdeal Pty Ltd was lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission in December 1998, prior to public release of the return on 1 February 1999.(2) The AEC has confirmed that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission database:* has no entry for a company by the name of Savengal Pty Ltd; and* shows a registered company address for Snowdeal Pty Ltd that is different from the address listed in the disclosure return lodged for the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party.(3) These matters raised will be considered as part of the AEC's programmed compliance investigation of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. 7096(Question No. 1135)11357096Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:What actions has the department undertaken to improve and enhance the environmental efficiency of the department.7096Newman, 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:The Department of Family and Community Services has demonstrated a commitment to environmental efficiency through the established practices of: purchasing recycled paper; recycling waste materials; reducing energy consumption through technology, such as after hours lighting and air conditioning controls; purchasing energy efficient office machines; and ensuring that the fleet vehicles are equipped to minimise pollutant emissions, using unleaded fuel.7096(Question No. 1137)11377096Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) When did the department, or the former Department of Social Security, complete its 1997-98 annual report.(2) How long did the Auditor-General take to certify the annual accounts.7096Newman, 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) The report was completed and presented to the President of the Senate pursuant to Standing Order 166 on 30 October 1998. The President tabled the report in the Senate on 10 November 1998.(2) The Australian National Audit Office provided the Department of Social Security with an unqualified audit report on 6 October 1998. The signed certificate is reproduced in the Annual Report.7096(Question No. 1149)11497096Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin7Y6NTALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Re gional Services, upon notice, on 25 June 1999:(1) Will the goods and services tax (GST) be payable on the Federal Government's $100 million funding to the Northern Territory Government for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway.(2) Will the GST increase the cost of construction of the proposed Alice Springs to Darwin railway; if so, how much will a GST add to the overall cost of construction.7097Macdonald, 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) The Commonwealth's commitment of $100 million from its Centenary of Federation Fund for the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link will constitute a taxable grant for the purposes of GST. $30 million of the grant is expected to be paid in this financial year under the existing taxation regime and the remaining $70 million to be paid in subsequent financial years and will be subject to GST.(2) The Treasury advises that the GST should not add to the cost of construction of the railway, and is more likely to result in a reduction.This is because, while a business will have to pay GST on its inputs, it will receive input tax credits for that tax. This makes business inputs effectively not subject to the GST, which together with the abolition of the existing wholesale sales tax and certain other State taxes, produces a cost saving.In turn the business will be liable to GST on the value of goods or services it sells and would pass this on in its price. The price increase from the tax reform should be an amount equivalent to the GST, net of cost savings from the abolition of existing indirect taxes.This effect will apply to the construction of the railway as much as to any other business activity. During the construction phase, the railway will be able to claim input tax credits for the GST on goods and services used and, if the credits exceed tax liabilities, obtain a refund of the tax paid.