1999-08-113914SENATE722101999-08-11The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous722109:30:007221Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, pursuant to standing order 154, I move:That the resolution of the Senate of 10 August 1999, relating to the Geelong Road, be communicated by message to the House of Representatives for concurrence.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7221s2237221Motion (by Senator Ellison, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.722109:32:007221Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was established by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. ATSIC began operations on 5 March 1990. ATSIC gives indigenous people a voice in the processes of government.Its representative arm consists of 35 Regional Councils on the mainland and Tasmania, and the Torres Strait Regional Authority. Every three years, indigenous people vote in Regional Council elec tions. Their elected representatives consult with local indigenous communities about programs and policies affecting them, and represent their interests to the ATSIC Board.ATSIC Regions are incorporated into zones. There are 16 zones, and the Regional Councillors in each zone elect one of their number to be on the ATSIC Board—their zone Commissioner. There is also a zone Commissioner from the Torres Strait, elected by members of the Torres Strait Regional Authority. To date, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has also appointed the Chairperson, and one other Commissioner. This provision in the ATSIC Act was amended in 1996, to provide that the Commission consisted of only elected representatives, and that the ATSIC Chairperson be elected by the Commissioners from amongst their number. This amendment to the act will apply after the forthcoming ATSIC zone elections which will follow the ATSIC Regional Council elections scheduled for 9 October 1999. It is expected that the elections of zone Commissioners will take place in early December 1999.Madame President, I pay tribute here to the achievements of the founding Chairperson, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, and the current Chair, Mr Gatjil Djerrkura. Both are widely respected and admired for their significant contributions to indigenous affairs in Australia.The bill before the Senate today does not include any major changes to the ATSIC Act, but it is important in that it clarifies the process pertaining to the new arrangements for the Chairperson. The bill provides that the person elected by his or her fellow Commissioners to be the ATSIC Chair ceases to hold his or her original offices of Regional Councillor and zone Commissioner. The positions left vacant by the election of the Chairperson will be filled through the processes set down in the election rules made under the ATSIC Act. The indigenous people in the affected region do not have to vote again—a recount is done to elect the new Councillor. In the case of the vacant position of zone Commissioner the Regional Councillors will elect a new Commissioner in a by election. This process results in a Commission of 18 members, rather than the 19 currently.To ensure that the number of Commissioners should equal the number of zones, plus one (the Chairperson), the bill also provides that a Chairperson who resigns is also taken to have resigned as a Commissioner. The bill removes the current reference to 17 members in section 27 of the act and clarifies that the Minister must appoint as members of the Commission those persons elected to represent the several zones.The bill will commence when Commissioners take office after the zone elections in approximately December 1999. There are no financial implications arising from this bill except that the person who fills the vacant offices of Commissioner and Regional Councillor will be entitled to salary and allowances.I commend the bill.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of the 1999 summer sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Bills7222s8417222Debate resumed from 10 August, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.09:32:007222Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Yesterday I addressed the Senate in reply to the second reading debate on the bill before the chamber, the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , and I would like to clarify for senators the fact that we do not have the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999 before the chamber. We are debating the bill which will in effect deal with the referendum on 6 November, and without the passage of that bill the referendum cannot take place. Consequential to any move to a republic is the passage of the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, which I have mentioned. I note that Senator Brown has moved amendments to the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill, but that bill is not before us at this time.I can say, however, that the government has considered its response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum, and in that report there were recommendations in relation to the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999. The government proposes tabling its response, which sets out the government's attitude to those recommendations of the joint committee which deal with the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and with the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999. We are covering two pieces of proposed legislation—one which is before the Senate and one which is not—but we want to be able to tell the Senate and the community what we as a government will do in the event that we move to a republic on 6 November this year.During the course of the committee stage in the debate of this bill it would be useful if we canvassed the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill as well. This is not an usual procedure, but we are dealing with something that is quite extraordinary—namely, a referendum dealing with whether this country should become a republic. There is nothing untoward about this; it is simply a matter of procedure and a matter I wanted to draw to the attention of senators. At the conclusion of my reply I will seek to table the government's response.As well as that, I draw to the attention of senators the fact that the research which I mentioned in my speech last night was tabled. That was made public previously, but nevertheless it was thought appropriate to table it yesterday so that anyone who did not have a copy of it could obtain one for the purposes of the ensuing debate.The government has amendments which I believe have now been circulated in the chamber. These amendments relate to the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , which is the bill before us.I conclude by once again thanking senators for their contributions yesterday and stressing to the Senate that the government is approaching this in an open-handed and objective manner and that it intends to engage in a full campaign to educate the community in relation to aspects of our current system, the proposed changes and the procedure of the referendum. We are taking on board the comments made in relation to informing the public. We realise from our research that there is some work to be done—approximately half those people surveyed said that they needed more information. More particularly we will be looking at those sectors of the community with a non-English speaking background, particularly Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. I conclude with those remarks, and I table the government's response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7223The bill.09:38:007223Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam Chair, before we commence the committee stage debate, can I ask for the cooperation of the committee in relation to the general issue of the handling of the committee stage debate. It goes to the issue of when we might deal with the question of the long title of the bill. You might seek advice on this, but I certainly understand that the issue of the long title may well in the ordinary course of events be dealt with at the conclusion of the committee stage of the debate. Given that the Senate standing orders are clear on that point, the point I would like to make to the committee in a general sense before we commence the committee stage debate is that we do have a circumstance here where the long title actually informs the debate. I think from all sides of the chamber and all sides of the argument there would be general agreement about that. It does seem to me in this instance that we might look, either with leave of the committee or with cooperation of those participating in the committee stage debate, that on this occasion, in the interests of facilitating the debate, we deal with the question of the long title first. I do not want to place that procedural conundrum before you so early in the day—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I have an answer, Senator.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Thank you. But I think most senators agree that it is an important threshold issue before we move into more general debate in the committee.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Standing orders require that the title is normally the last item dealt with in the committee stage. However, it is up to the committee itself, if it is the wish of the committee, to deal with the amendments and the issues in whatever order it so wishes. If the committee wishes to deal with the title first then, if there is leave to do so, the bill having been taken as a whole, it can be done. We do now have a running sheet, too, I am told. 09:41:007223Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would endorse the process that Senator Faulkner has just outlined, Chair. I think it is sensible. As Senator Faulkner says, the long title does inform the debate. It is central to the debate that is going to ensue. I am trying to just work this out. It is a matter of really determining at the outset what the question will be at referendum in so far as this committee is concerned and then we get on to debating the rest. The long title of the bill is in effect the sentence that will be put on the referendum papers, so it is very important that we clear that up first. Senator Faulkner is quite sensibly saying that we should do that instead of as normal at the end as a very last question in the committee deliberations, which could be sometime tonight or tomorrow. It is much better that we know what we are dealing with right now at the outset. I think it is a sensible move and I will certainly be granting leave, if that is what is required.09:42:007223Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I take the view that the long title should be dealt with in accordance with what is in the standing orders. It is there for a very valid reason in the standing orders. I have seen amendments to legislation go through the committee stage which really do have an effect on those of us who are considering the long title at the end of the legislation. To deal with the long title at this point in time is, in my view, premature. There is quite a large number of amendments which we need to be considering and I do not think it is appropriate or practical, to be quite frank, to deal with the long title right now. I would suggest that it would be better to deal with the long title, if it is inadequate, having regard to amendments that are made to the legislation. Let us do it at the appropriate time, informed as we will be of what the general desire of the chamber is.09:44:007223Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This is slightly at a tangent but I think still relevant to the order we deal with the amendments in. We have now got an initial incomplete running sheet. Can I clarify whether there are further amendments to be circulated? I have been able to find some amendments by Senator Murray on behalf of the Democrats, plus the government's.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—It is not within the knowledge of the chair if there are further amendments to be circulated within the chamber. I am sorry, but this is an incomplete running sheet.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I do not have any opposition amendments for starters. I know that there are other amendments from Senator Stott Despoja, and on the running sheet the opposition ones are coming up first. I am just wondering about this.10000Bartlett, Sen AndrewThe CHAIRMAN—We have opposition amendments up here.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000Bartlett, Sen AndrewThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, by way of an interjection, has indicated that they have been circulated. It is sheet 1487 and the time and date at the bottom of that sheet of amendments is 10 August 1999 at 5.30 p.m.09:45:007224Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset can I please table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and also address the proposal put by the opposition. I understand that it has been put forward with the best of reasons. However, I think it is best to stick with the standing orders and deal with the long title last. There will be a debate on the bill and there may or may not be amendments during the course of that debate and I think it is appropriate at the conclusion of the debate to then look back at the bill that you have and consider the long title. I think that is why we deal with the long title at the conclusion of the debate: so that senators know what we are dealing with. It is somewhat like putting the cart before the horse. Therefore, I would put to the chamber that the government is not minded to support that proposition.09:46:007224Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—There are unique circumstances here and I do think, in relation to this particular bill, that the long title does inform the debate, as I have indicated. But I also would knowledge that, if we are to approach the question in a different way than might ordinarily be the case, then that requires all senators in the chamber to be comfortable with it. I appreciate that the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens believe that this would be a sensible way of proceeding but I acknowledge that Senator Harradine has some concerns and that Senator Ellison, who is handling the bill for the government, is very lukewarm about the proposition.On that basis I do not intend to press the issue and I am sure that senators will have a mind to the substantive issue as we deal with it in the committee stage of debate. I do not want to delay the committee on this general question any longer. It is something certainly worth progressing but only worth progressing when all senators in the chamber and those who are representing different points of view are comfortable with a different approach on important legislation in a key committee stage debate.10000Faulkner, Sen JohnThe CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted.09:48:007224Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Chair, as a courtesy to the chair and as a courtesy to the chamber, I should advise you that amendments circulated in my name are those that are presented by me as an individual senator, not on behalf of the Democrats. The Democrats have been well aware of my personal position for well over two years. I think that, whilst there is quite a deal of sympathy for my position within the party room, nevertheless I should not misrepresent my views as reflecting those of the party room and I will be presenting those amendments individually. If the chair would accept that understanding, I would be grateful.10000Murray, Sen AndrewThe CHAIRMAN—I hope that when the completed running sheet comes out that is taken note of because I do have a whole bundle of amendments that are down as being moved by Senator Murray on behalf of the Democrats. They are on sheet 1472. I take it, Senator Murray, that those are the ones that you will be moving as an individual and not on behalf of the Democrats?3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Yes, Madam Chair. There are two sheets from me: one is 1472 and the other is 1492.10000Murray, Sen AndrewThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the bill stand as printed. According to the running sheet, the first amendment is opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet 1487.09:49:007225Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 25), at the end of section 59, add:Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to the Constitution, the constitutional conventions concerning the appropriate sources of advice for the Governor-General in respect of the exercise of the reserve powers applying immediately before the office of Governor-General ceased to exist shall apply in respect of the President.By way of a general introduction, I indicate that the opposition is moving the amendments that we moved in the House of Representatives. The flavour and impact of those amendments were in essence to pick up the recommendations of the advisory report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. This is one of those areas where the committee did make some recommendations and I will turn to those in just a few moments. However, also at the outset can I say that we do not intend to embark upon a long, protracted debate. Others might do so in the chamber this morning but we do not intend to embark on a long, protracted debate in respect of these issues. For us the core issue is the question that is to be put to the public. In respect of this, recommendations 8 and 9 of the report are essentially the source of motivation for the opposition to move this particular amendment. This amendment provides that, subject to the Constitution, the constitutional conventions concerning the appropriate sources of advice for the Governor-General in respect of the exercise of the reserve powers applying immediately before the office of Governor-General ceased to exist shall apply in respect of the President. In essence, this amendment seeks to do a bit of housekeeping to ensure that the sources of advice continue to be the same for the President as they would otherwise have been for the Governor-General.09:52:007225Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Briefly, for the reasons outlined by Senator Bolkus, the Australian Democrats think this is a logical and appropriate amendment. We will be supporting the amendment before the chair.09:52:007225Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—For the record, the government opposes this amendment. It does so on the basis that the recommendation by the joint committee concerned more the advice on the exercise of non-reserve powers while this is couched in terms of `in respect of the exercise of the reserve powers'. There is a difference there and the government believes that this, in effect, does not carry out the recommendation of the joint standing committee.09:52:007225Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I point the minister to recommendation No. 8 of the joint standing committee where, quite clearly, the committee is of the view that consideration be given to amending the bill to state that `the conventions which currently determine the appropriate source of advice should apply in respect of the President'. As I say, this is a housekeeping matter, but I do not think the minister should be under any misconception that the committee did not have a view in respect of the sources of advice. That is exactly the language we are seeking to apply through our amendment to the legislation. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bolkus's ) be agreed to.09:58:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Harris, L. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Campbell, G. Newman, J. M.Evans, C. V. Hill, R. M.Crowley, R. A. Minchin, N. H.Lundy, K. Brownhill, D. G. C.McKiernan, J. P. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10:01:007226Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I refer the committee to amendment (2) on sheet 1472. That amendment refers to page 3 of the bill, section 59, Executive power. The amendment says that `the exercise and extent of a reserve power shall not be subject to review by any court or tribunal'. The reserve powers of a President together with the conventions guiding their exercise are placed in the Constitution in the proposed section 59. By this fact, these powers could become justiciable. This could have the practical effect of dragging the High Court into a political controversy to review whether an act of a President was constitutional. This would be unprecedented in our constitutional history, and could cause delays and hinder the proper use of the reserve powers.While the crisis of 1975 was undeniably tumultuous, it was resolved in the political arena. The High Court was already stained, in my opinion, by the involvement of Barwick CJ in the controversy, but it would have incurred much more damage had the High Court been placed in the position of reviewing Governor-General Kerr's actions. In my opinion, the role of the High Court must be, so far as is possible, to be a separate independent arbiter on the proper construction of constitutional provisions. Involvement in political crises could seriously impair its capacity and authority to perform this function. It is my view that it is not a body well placed or equipped to perform that role. Having said that, it is imperative that the reserve powers of the Governor-General are carried over to the President, along with the conventions that guide their exercise. That is why I have just voted with the opposition on their amendment. I submit that the proposed section 59 paragraph 3 should contain the explicit direction that the reserve powers and conventions mentioned in the paragraph are not to be subject to review in any court. It is my belief and understanding that that is the present situation and I think it is desirable that it continue. I accordingly move amendment No. 2:(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 25), at the end of section 59, add: The exercise and extent of a reserve power shall not be subject to review by any court or tribunal.10:04:007226Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—It is the opposition's view that the government has an amendment which covers this precise point of justiciability. It is that amendment that the opposition prefers to the amendment moved by Senator Murray. It is an amendment we find to be more in line with the advisory report of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. When Senator Ellison moves it, we will be supporting the government's amendment.10:04:007226Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—As a Democrat I do support Senator Murray's amendment in this circumstance. There is good argument proffered by people like Professor George Winterton that if it is the will of the parliament that the reserve powers not be justiciable then perhaps there should be some reference to that in the bill. That is my understanding of what my colleague seeks to do. We will be supporting him on that.10:05:007227Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Senator Murray was talking about 1975, and I was looking at this amendment which appears as if it is going to be accepted—at least the concept. That of course was not the problem in 1975. The problem there was—and Senator Murray mentioned it—about the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick. It was what he did before the dismissal that was of concern. It was the giving of advice to the Governor-General as Chief Justice that led to the concern and distress at that time. Listening to Senator Murray it seemed to me that this provision does not overcome the problem that led to the tumult at that time. I understand that what he is saying is that the decision of the Governor-General or the President to exercise a reserve power should not be subject to the High Court, but that is not the issue that was a problem in 1975; the issue in 1975 was the discussion between the Governor-General at that time and the Chief Justice about matters which, I would say, propriety should not have allowed.10:06:007227Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government does not support Senator Murray's amendment. As pointed out by Senator Bolkus, we have an amendment, our amendment No. 5, which deals with this. Our amendment inserts a new clause 8A and deals with justiciability. It states:The enactment of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 does not make justiciable the exercise by the President of a reserve power referred to in section 59 of this Constitution if the exercise by the Governor-General of that power was not justiciable.That preserves the status quo. We believe it is in accordance with the recommendations of the joint committee. The status quo is the reserve powers, and the conventions which govern their exercise are high political matters which are not subject to review by a court. That view has been questioned from time to time. In the approach to this, the government has thought it best to follow the recommendation of the joint committee in leaving things as they are, but it still keeps faith with the convention model. It rules out any argument that any reserve powers or conventions are lost in the transition to a republic. It preserves the status quo whilst accommodating any change. For those reasons, the government will be opposing the amendment.Amendment not agreed to.10:08:007227Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I move Green amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), omit "may", substitute "must".(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 31), after "citizen", insert "recommended by that committee".These amendments take away the discretion of the Prime Minister to nominate any citizen and ensure that the Prime Minister must nominate one of those citizens whose name is put forward by the committee specifically established for that purpose. I cannot see much point in having a committee that puts forward a list of potential presidents to the Prime Minister for the Prime Minister then to select somebody entirely different.There is, as we know, a lot of concern amongst the Australian electorate that there is not going to be, under the formula presented by this bill, opportunity for direct election of the President by the people of Australia. What came out of the Constitutional Convention is the alternative means of input for the selection of a President: any Australian can put forward the name of a person or persons who they believe would make a good President to a committee set up to vet those nominations, to narrow the field and to put forward a short list to the Prime Minister, who then makes a selection. If that is approved by the Leader of the Opposition, the vital steps have been made towards the selection of a new President.Under this legislation, however, the Prime Minister can get around that. The Prime Minister can look at the short list which has come through that public nomination process and select somebody entirely different. On Channel 9 the night before last Prime Minister Howard pointed to this very shortcoming as another reason for people voting no at the coming referendum. This Greens amendment gets around the Prime Minister's ability to argue that that nomination process is a farce. It tightens it up. It ensures that the Prime Minister is limited to the list put forward by the Presidential Nominations Committee.The committee will be aware that I have an amendment which I will move later to also make that nominations committee balanced in its representation of the Australian people. It will, amongst other things, mean that the Prime Minister, who nominates the committee, will have to take into account states and territories of origin of people going on the committee, sex, age, cultural diversity and the desirability of indigenous representation.This is a minimal alternative to the direct election process. It is very important that we tighten this up, that we make that Presidential Nominations Committee a real representation of the Australian people, that we make its work valid and that we do not leave open to the cupidity of a future Prime Minister the ability to treat it with disdain and go outside the nominated list put forward and select somebody else. That has the potential of course for a Prime Minister to ensure that, in the future, he or she chooses a President who comes from their own political party or their own persuasion or who is seen as a safe bet rather than somebody who has come through the public nomination process.They are very important amendments, simple as they may be. Amendment No. 1 substitutes the word `may' for `must'. It says that the Prime Minister must take a nominee from the list put forward by his or her own Presidential Nominations Committee. It is a very simple and important amendment. I recommend the amendments to the committee.10:14:007228Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting the two Green amendments before us for many of the reasons outlined by Senator Brown. We think it is quite an appropriate amendment to place an onus on the Prime Minister that he will act in accordance with the wishes and the recommendations of the nomination committee. The Australian Democrats appreciate that there are some already existing safeguards and provisions in the legislation which ensure that the Prime Minister has regard to the committee's recommendations, but we do not believe there are enough safeguards to ensure that the Prime Minister of the day does not simply ignore or override the will of that committee.The nomination process was a key, I believe, to the success of this particular model in the final stages of the Constitutional Convention last year. An important ingredient of that was allowing for public input into that nomination process and ensuring that the public input was appropriately diverse and reasonably representative. That is an issue that we discussed in the joint select committee process. I am glad to see that the second recommendation of that committee was accepted. It states:. . . Nominations Committee Bill be amended to require the Prime Minister to, as far as practicable, have regard to the diversity of the Australian people when appointing community members of the Nominations Committee.All these factors are very important. We should have some sense of certainty in relation to the Prime Minister's actions. The previous speaker referred to some rather glib comments by the Prime Minister in a Channel 9 interview a couple of nights ago that concerned me. There is a need to ensure diversity is taken into account and that the will of the people on that committee is not overruled and ignored. Certainly, this is one way of doing that and the Democrats support it.10:16:007228Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicate at this stage that the opposition does not support these two amendments. We have concerns about the statements made by the Prime Minister the other night. Given anyone with bad faith—and he seems to be showing it at the moment in respect of this process and this legislation—you will, of course, have a number of issues raised that, at the end of the day, probably will not be the issues that they are because of the intervention of the Prime Minister in the debate the other night.In respect of these amendments, we say that there has to be some degree of flexibility. The word `must' is probably inappropriate when it comes to the necessity for an agreement between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. You cannot force that sort of agreement. A degree of flexibility is important. In respect of the first part of the amendment—`must move for a President to be appointed'—we have a view that the reality is that that will happen once the system is set up, so there is no need to have the obligation that is implied in the word `must'. We do not agree with these two amendments and will be opposing them.10:17:007229Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—When considering this very important question, it is important for the parliament to ensure that, as far as possible, the will of the people is upheld. I make the observation that the committee established under this schedule is an appointed committee; it is not an elected committee. The Prime Minister of Australia is elected. The question is who is to be made responsible for the appointment of the President.Under this provision, the Prime Minister can put forward a name to the parliament, but the motion requires seconding by the Leader of the Opposition and affirming by a two-thirds majority. For the Prime Minister and, ipso facto, the Leader of the Opposition to be required to accept the person nominated by an unelected committee—he will normally do this, obviously—then it really places the ultimate decision in the hands of an unelected committee. I do not think that is in the interests of democracy.If they make a mistake they will not have to bear any burden because they are, after all, only appointed. But, my goodness, if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition make the mistake then they are politically accountable. They are elected and they are the ones who should bear the brunt if anything goes wrong. I offer those views on these amendments.10:20:007229Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like Senator Brown to consider that if you put this in—and we were talking about the High Court before—this certainly does become judiciable because a challenge could be made on the basis that the Prime Minister did not take into account the matters set out here sufficiently or at all. I am not sure whether Senator Brown wants that. If you accept these matters, how do you deal with other matters, which I cannot conceive of now, that develop into issues and become relevant in the next 50 or 100 years? Why are we limiting it to issues which may seem anachronistic 100 years from now?10:21:007229Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In response to both issues, I come back to the issue of the people of Australia. I am not going to support a situation which is farcical whereby a committee is established to which the Australian people put in nominations and then the Prime Minister can gazump it, ignore it. In response to Senator Harradine, the Prime Minister is going to nominate this committee, hopefully with reference to the diversity of Australians. The Prime Minister is responsible for the committee. There is no getting away from that. If the committee does not give the right choices to the Prime Minister then it is on his or her head.We already have in this legislation the situation where that committee is appointed and the Prime Minister is responsible for it. If the Prime Minister makes a hash of establishing that committee then of course the people can judge that at the ballot-box. But this committee has been established as a means—it is a very vital component—of offsetting the disappointment many Australians are expressing that this legislation does not enable the direct election of a President, because so many Australians want to be able to vote for a President each time that vacancy occurs. What I am saying here is that the Constitutional Convention said, `Well, the best way we can assuage that wish by Australians under the system that has been devised is that there be a committee set up, that that committee be appointed by the Prime Minister but it then consider the nominations coming from Australians as to who should be President.' That is all. That is where the Australian people get their input.The committee and the Labor Party here, along with Senator Harradine and the government, are saying, `Well, yes, we have the committee set up. The nominations all go in, but then the Prime Minister can ignore that.' We are just simply giving more power to the executive office, to the Prime Minister. I do not think that is what we are about in this place. I think those parties who are saying no to this amendment should think again. Maybe the Labor Party sees itself back in office at some future time and it wants its Prime Minister to have this power. Of course that is going to happen, but it is not giving the Australian people the dinkum opportunity, minimal as this process might be, to feed in their nomination for President and expect that nomination to be treated with the respect it deserves.If the Prime Minister can get round that nomination process then you are devaluing it. Its value is limited as it is, and I think to devalue it further by opposing these two amendments is the wrong way to go. I certainly want a division on this, but it may be that I am not even going to get support for that. Let that be on the record.10:25:007230Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I would like to deal with these amendments in two parts. The first substitutes `must' for `may'. One of the weaknesses of the bill and the proposals is that it is possible that there may exist an indeterminate period when an Acting President is in place. It is improper, in my view, for that situation not to be resolved. What the first change would do, without taking responsibility away from the Prime Minister to make the decision, which is the present intention of this bill, would be to require him to make that decision or require her to make that decision—and may it soon be a her as well—as a result of the committee meeting and making some recommendations to him. So I think the change from `may' to `must' is a useful improvement on the bill.However, I find the second amendment difficult to support because that just says `recommended by that committee' and, as we all know, this is at least a two-part process—it is probably a three-part process: firstly, the public are invited to provide nominations; secondly, the committee meets and comes to a conclusion; and, thirdly, the Prime Minister of the day is required to consult, as the bill says, with the Leader of the Opposition. As we will discuss later, I am of the opinion that consultation should be with the heads of political parties within the parliament. If at some day in the future the coalition dissolves back into two constituent parties, I think it would be utterly improper for the Leader of the National Party not to be consulted and I certainly think it is improper for the Leader of the Australian Democrats not to be consulted. So the stricture that it is confined to the decisions recommended by that committee is in contradiction to the bill's intent, to the model's intent, and is a restraint. Senator Brown, I indicate to you that I like recommendation 1 but I cannot support recommendation 2.10:28:007230Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Murray is indicating a difference of opinion on the two. Therefore, I seek leave to separate the questions so they can be looked at serially rather than together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—You do not need leave to do that. We can do that from the chair, Senator Brown.10:29:007230Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I just want to draw the attention of the Senate to the third recommendation from the advisory report of the joint select committee. I think this picks up on the fact that while there may have been an awareness of a need for flexibility, for lack of a better word, in terms of how the Prime Minister responded to the nominations committee's recommendations, it also balances that with some form of accountability. The recommendation reads:. . . that the draft legislation be appropriately amended to provide that where the Prime Minister nominates as President a person other than a candidate mentioned in the short list from the Nominations Committee, the Prime Minister be required to table a statement in Parliament giving his or her reasons for deciding that such exceptional circumstances existed for failing to comply with the Nomination Committee's recommendations.I ask the government for its official response to that third recommendation contained in the advisory report.10:30:007230Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I ask the minister in his response to give an indication to the committee of his view as to Senator Cooney's statement that it is judiciable. Isn't it a fact that the Prime Minister cannot simply ignore the recommendation that has been made by the nomination committee? Indeed, the provision of the legislation that we are considering says:After considering the report of a committee established and operating as the Parliament provides to invite and consider nominations for appointment as President, the Prime Minister may, in a joint sitting of members . . . If the Prime Minister simply ignored the recommendations of the committee, is it a fact that that matter could be tested in the courts? Could the minister indicate whether that would be the situation?10:31:007231Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—While the minister is considering that, I will say that of course that is the situation. Either way, it is going to be available to some citizen to take any matter in this legislation to the courts, but I submit that that is not the point. The point I am trying to make is that we should make the input of the Australian people valid so that the Prime Minister has not only to take notice of what they have said but to select a presidential nominee, whose name has originally been put forward by the Australian people, from the process which is established here. We should not make this selection committee process and the input of the Australian people a farce, if the Prime Minister seeks to go outside it. Of course, any Prime Minister who comes up with their own presidential nominee outside the list put forward by the committee is going to say, `I considered the committee's list, but I've got somebody who is better.'If we adopt my amendment, which says that the Prime Minister must select somebody from the short list put forward by the committee, any Prime Minister who has a nominee whom he or she wants to see as President has the simple mechanism of recommending their nominee to this committee. If they are a good nominee, they will be on the short list. It is not cutting the Prime Minister's wishes out. It is a process. I am ensuring here that the Australian electorate does not get cut out in this process.10:33:007231Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I should point out that Senator Brown's interpretation of `must' and my interpretation of it differ. I think that is important to the debate, because this `must' means that the Prime Minister must make a decision. This `must' does not say that that decision must be more than informed by the committee. They are two processes: to receive the committee's recommendation and to consult with the Leader of the Opposition. If ever this matter were dealt with, I would expect that the committee's recommendation would weigh very heavily on the Prime Minister. My reading of that clause on a strict interpretation—and there are some lawyers in the gathering in the chamber—is that it simply means that he must make a decision, not that he must make that decision in favour of the list given to him by the committee.10:34:007231Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Murray, I recommend that you accept both of the amendments. It then means that the Prime Minister must make a decision and that the decision must be from the list put forward by the committee, which is adjudicating on nominations coming from the Australian people.10:34:007231Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There are a number of matters. The government opposes these amendments Nos 1 and 2 by the Greens. I will deal with each in turn. Firstly, the changing of the word `may' to `must' does imply a sanction. In fact, we would agree with Senator Cooney's assertion that this heightens the aspect of justiciability. It is something which Senator Harradine was concerned with. It imposes a more cast-iron obligation on the Prime Minister and, of course, that is the intention that the Greens have here. But the more you do that, the more you open it up to judicial review, and that is something which the government thinks is problematic.In any event, there is a clear expectation that the President will be appointed at the end of an incumbent's term. This has operated for many years in this country with the way that governors-general are appointed by the Prime Minister. The practice has been observed, and the government believes it will continue to be observed because there will be political pressures to do so. The convention provided for an Acting President in circumstances where there might be a gap between appointments. I put to the Senate that the convention was not of a mind to say that there should be an automatic requirement—the insertion of a `must', if you like—in relation to the Prime Minister's actions. It saw that the current system was sufficient and that there would be sufficient pressure to appoint a successor to the incumbent. Therefore, the government is of a view that it would be inappropriate to require the Prime Minister in the circumstances mentioned.The government's proposal allows for the opportunity for the Prime Minister to engage with the Leader of the Opposition to nominate a presidential candidate. You do not know what might transpire in the affairs of human beings. You might have someone who is on the way to being nominated who passes away or for some other reason is ineligible, and it is then back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, you would have this sanction of `must' hanging over the Prime Minister. It is the view of the government that, in the circumstances, there are adequate safeguards that carry on the current practice and that are not contrary to the convention model.As for the second amendment, the government is saying that the proposal is in accordance with the convention recommendations. The Prime Minister is technically under no obligation to nominate someone from the short list. However, again, there would be immense political pressure to do so. The requirement of a sanction again opens this up to judicial review and again does not accommodate something which might transpire, such as someone becoming ineligible to be moved forward. For that reason, the government is of the view that this should not be changed. The convention said that, having taken into account the report of the committee, the Prime Minister would put forward a single nomination. The convention did not say that it must be from the short list, although it was intended that there be political pressure that it be from the short list—and, in most cases, it would invariably be from the short list. Nonetheless the convention proceeded on the basis that the Prime Minister would not be bound to move a name which was from the short list, much for the reasons I have pointed out.There is another aspect mentioned by Senator Stott Despoja in relation to recommendation 3 of the joint committee which provided that:. . . where the Prime Minister nominates as President a person other than a candidate mentioned in the short list . . . the Prime Minister be required to table a statement in Parliament giving his or her reasons for deciding that such exceptional circumstances existed for failing to comply with the Nomination Committee's recommendations.The government's response is in the document I tabled earlier. In substance, that recommendation is supported. Under section 60 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister is technically under no obligation to limit his or her nomination to a person from the short list provided by a nominations committee in its report. The Constitutional Convention's resolution is expressed in terms that the Prime Minister is to `take into account' the committee's report. It is clear that debate at the convention proceeded on the basis that the Prime Minister should not be under obligation to appoint a person identified by the nominations committee, although it was rightly recognised that the political realities would impose pressures to do so. I outlined that earlier.It is possible to identify circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to nominate a person recommended by a nominations committee. An example is where agreement could not be reached with the Leader of the Opposition on any of the committee's short list. In any nominations procedure, the Prime Minister has to obtain the backing of the Leader of the Opposition. Another example is where an outstanding candidate excluded from the committee's consideration because of an apparent unavailability subsequently agreed to be considered when approached by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. It may well be that the nominations committee looked at a pool of candidates but excluded an outstanding candidate who was thought at the time to be unavailable, that that then changed and that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both then thought this person should be approached. That would rule out an allowance for that to be accommodated.The government would not accept any proposal to amend proposed section 60 of the Constitution to fetter the Prime Minister's constitutional discretion. However, the government supports amendments of the nominations committee bill to provide explicitly for a Prime Minister who moves a name that is not on the nominations committee short list to inform the parliament of reasons for the alternative nomination. The government would undertake to move an amendment in those terms accordingly when or if the need arose to consider the nominations committee bill. The government is saying that it would agree to the Prime Minister having to table reasons as to the choice of this alternative candidate. It would not be a situation where the Prime Minister would have to give reasons for deciding that such exceptional circumstances existed for failing to comply with the nominations committee recommendations—a subtle difference but nonetheless one which we believe is more preferable. It would perhaps avoid the odium of comparison.In the situation recommended by the joint committee, you would invite a situation where the Prime Minister might say, `These weren't as good as the one I am looking at,' or, `There was some problem with these candidates.' We are saying that, if the Prime Minister does choose an outsider—to term it that way—the Prime Minister would give reasons saying why that person was such an outstanding candidate. For those reasons, we believe there should be a subtle difference in the way we support recommendation 3 of the joint committee.10:43:007233Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank the minister, but I am totally unconvinced. We can always come up with a list of `what ifs'. What if the Prime Minister died in office? What if the Deputy Prime Minister went down in a plane crash at the same time? We can always come up with `what ifs'. We are dealing with the practicalities of the situation and the passage of political power. I am moving here power to the people, not more power to the Prime Minister. We are in an age where the executive is accreting more and more power to itself. I do not want to be part of that process. It may suit the big parties to be, but I think the model we have here is not the favoured model of the Australian people. Australians want to be part of the process of nominating a President. They do not want a Prime Minister, even if recently elected by them, to be able to gazump that process or to get around it. We should be making that clear here. I can see I do not have the numbers, but I reiterate that these amendments are about power to the people.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—The question is that Greens amendment No. 1 be agreed to.10:49:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Lees, M. H.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.54Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Minchin, N. H.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Greens amendment No. 2 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendment No. 2.10:54:007234Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition is not pursuing this amendment; we withdraw it.10:54:007234Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move amendment No. 3 on sheet 1472, as revised:(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 1 and 2), omit "seconded by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives", substitute "supported by the leader of each political party with at least 5 members in the Parliament".This amendment has been revised—for those who are looking for major changes—to make sure it notes that I am speaking on behalf of myself and not on behalf of all the Democrats. In moving this motion, I will give a brief resume of my reasons. The proposed section 60 provides that the Leader of the Opposition must second the nomination of the President. That makes the bold assumption that a single formal Leader of the Opposition will continue to exist in Australian federal politics in the long term. Given that our Constitution needs to remain workable during the course of the 21st century and given the knowledge we all have that constitutions are extremely difficult to change, it is desirable that such assumptions be soundly based.It is clear from our parliamentary history that the House of Representatives two-party system of today—and even so it is not two-party because, as we know, the coalition is already composed of two—has not always prevailed. The Liberal Party, for example, was formed in 1944 out of the remnants of the United Australia Party and 13 other anti-Labor organisations. A survey of the OECD nations reveals that, out of 29 countries, 23 have multiparty oppositions as opposed to formal single-party oppositions. Given the increasing fluidity of contemporary politics, it would be naive to simply assume that the existing Australian party system will not undergo significant changes over the coming century. Therefore, proposed constitutional change should not be so short-sighted as to be founded on a view that the two-party system is here to stay.I submit that a provision should be added that the candidate nominated by the Prime Minister have the formal support of the leaders of all recognised federal parliamentary political parties prior to the candidate's name being put to the joint house vote. I know that the constitutional committee has recommended that the words `if any' be added following `the Leader of the Opposition'. But that to me is a poor additional change. It helps, but the real emphasis of the Constitutional Convention model was that some kind of consensual agreement should be reached within the parliament—and I agree with that. I agree that it is desirable and helpful for the Leader of the Opposition to agree with the Prime Minister that the appropriate presidential nomination is the right one for the country; I think that is right. But, if you are going to take `consensus' in its appropriate meaning, you should consult with the leaders of all recognised political parties—with the Leader of the National Party, with the Leader of the Australian Democrats and with the leader of any other political party that is recognised in the parliament.The answer may be, `But the nomination has to be approved by a joint sitting anyway,' but that approval process occurs after the consultation. My point simply is to try to ensure that the consultation takes place first. If it is the intention of the Constitutional Convention and if it is the intention of the government and the opposition in supporting the bill that they support a consensual model, why limit it to a notional Leader of the Opposition who might not exist at some future time and not involve a consensual approach to leaders of all political parties that are recognised at the time?As an aside, I was interested to see in the formation of the new Israeli government, for instance, the government being composed of something like 11 or 13 parties and the opposition, as such, being composed of another 11 or 13 parties.Senator Bolkus interjecting—3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—You come from a long history of factional brawling, Senator Bolkus. We both understand the tensions that can emerge from time to time in any political party. I make the point that none of us can foresee the future; we do not know whether this will turn back into a two-party system, remain as it is at present or become much more multiparty than it is at present. Personally, as you know, I incline towards the latter, but I cannot foresee the future. I am simply suggesting that, if this constitutional change is to be embedded and passed by the people, it should cater for future eventualities better than it does at present and better than the recommendation put by the committee that was reviewing this matter.11:00:007235Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition opposes Senator Murray's amendment. We see it as not meriting our support for a number of reasons. First of all, it is not within the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention, nor within the ambit of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. Let us understand that those two processes were about reflecting a long process of consultation—the involvement of the public—in the development of a proposal which could be presented to the people and which would have a chance of success in any referendum of the Australian people.Senator Murray, it seems to me that you have been spending too much time with the Prime Minister, because on this and many other amendments today you seem to want to develop as many snags in the proposal going to the public as necessary to ensure that it does not survive the referendum process. Your laughter probably indicates that I may have touched on your motivation here. We see this as a gridlock amendment, basically. We understand why you would put it up. We recognise that any good debate in public would ensure that the public was made aware of the fact that what you are proposing here is a gridlock amendment.In terms of the gridlock amendment, our view is that it would be an enormous process to try to get agreement however many parties were in this place at the appropriate time. At the moment we cannot even see agreement within the Democrats on a particular course or direction. If the constitutional process had to wait for the Australian Democrats to come to a consensus about who would or would not be appropriate, it could become quite unbearable.Senator Murray, the Israeli model is one that you have proposed to us. As I said to you as an aside, maybe that is the model you want to see for the Australian Democrats, but I do not think we should imperil the constitutional process through the whims of parties which may in fact be minor parties of the day. For us there are sufficient pressures, triggers and constitutional requirements in the model to ensure a consensual approach is taken. The model brings together the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and it brings together the parliament. It requires a two-thirds majority of the parliament. The whole spirit and constitutional structure is one which demands and necessitates a degree of consultation and agreement. We think that spirit will ensure that not only would the Leader of the Opposition be consulted but also the names evolved by the Presidential Nominations Committee would involve an input from every other party and individual in the community and the parliament. We see your amendment as a gridlock amendment and we do not support it.11:04:007235Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Senator Bolkus is in fine form today, but I should acknowledge that this is an amendment around which there is no division or tension. In fact, the Australian Democrats as a whole strongly support the amendment proposed by Senator Murray for the reasons he has so eloquently outlined. Referring to the Constitutional Convention, Senator Bolkus and others would be aware of my attempts, as the Australian Democrat federal delegate at that convention, to incorporate wherever possible maximum consultation with Australian people and politicians and to ensure that all political parties had some formal role in the processes. I was successful with one set of amendments to ensure that the leaders of political parties with more than five representatives in parliament were involved in the Presidential Nominations Committee process. I am glad to see that that amendment was successful. Other attempts, however, to ensure a formal role for leaders of parties other than the two main parties were not successful, but that does not mean that the Democrats have shied away from those attempts to improve this legislation.We do not think it is particularly difficult to imagine future circumstances where the non-government benches seat a number of opposition parties. We are moving already to an increasing multiparty system in our own parliament, and Senator Murray has referred to what happens in parliaments and governments around the world. This particular amendment not only allows for any future flexibility we might need in our Constitution, but also ensures that the proposal of a candidate by a two-thirds joint sitting of the parliament is a consultative process and, therefore, we think, perhaps a more successful one. The Constitutional Convention sought to ensure that the candidate proposed to the parliament involved a consultative process through many of the ways we have outlined—the nominations process, public input, et cetera. We believe that consultative mechanism is important.I am not sure whether the opposition withdrew its amendment which reflected the recommendation of the advisory committee report because they thought that it may be incorporated by the government or that someone else might move it, but I am a bit surprised by that decision. There has been a number of references by government and opposition members today to the recommendations contained in that report, and I think that was a report that grappled with some of these issues—whether there would be an identifiable Leader of the Opposition in the future, and what impact that might have on the success of the nomination and the appointment process; that is, if there were not an ascertainable Leader of the Opposition would the seconding and appointment processes be in some way compromised or undermined.Not only with those thoughts in mind—that is, would there be an identifiable Leader of the Opposition—but also I think to ensure that there was that adequate and increased level of consultation, the recommendation that arises out of the committee's report, recommendation No. 4, reads that the republic bill be amended by inserting the words `if any' in proposed section 60 following the words `Leader of the Opposition'. So I think there was a multiparty recognition of the need to include those words.I speak on behalf of the Democrats strongly in favour of Senator Murray's amendment. We will be supporting it. We do not see it as an attempt to introduce some kind of gridlock to this process but in fact to expand the process in an inclusive and a consultative way.11:08:007236Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I think there are two issues here. There is the nomination and then there is the debate. It is quite clear that, if the nomination has to be affirmed by two-thirds of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, everybody is going to have a say. It is almost going to be like a confirmation hearing, I suppose, which does change things from the way it is done now and goes closer to the American system, where they have confirmation hearings for judges and other officials.It seems to me that, if you are going to have the leader of a party of five or more, then why shouldn't you have people like Senator Brown and Senator Harradine coming in at the initial stage. I would have thought that the idea of having a Prime Minister's nomination seconded by the Leader of the Opposition is a practical one because the government and the opposition are going to have the pull on the floor of the chamber in which these matters are discussed and it is sensible to at least have a fighting position to put to the House of Representatives and the Senate when these matters are being discussed. I am not sure why you should then have everybody who is leader of a party of five or more in that process. It would in effect transfer that process from the debate in the chamber, where everybody can have a go, to a college of electors, as it were, where it would be the leadership of the parties rather than the membership of the parties who are going to have the say.What is really being proposed, I think, is that the President be elected by the leaders of the various parties rather than by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate. As it presently reads, people like Senator Brown and Senator Harradine have a big say and can make their voices heard when the debate is taking place as to who should be President. But under the system proposed by Senator Murray, for whom I have got the highest respect, you would have a college of the leaders of the parties electing the President, and I do not think that is what is intended.11:11:007237Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will briefly respond to that. Senator Cooney, as I read the legislation, at present it is a college of two. In other words, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will fix up the President, go back to their respective caucuses and they have secured the two-thirds. That is with the existing numbers in both houses of parliament at present. All we are suggesting is that it should be widened. Remember that this is a consultation process. The actual voting, of course, is by individuals in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and would include Independents and political parties without recognised status. The reason we have not included consultation with everybody not representing a political party is simply that if that becomes widespread, in other words if you had 30 or 40 Independents, it could be difficult to manage, and the parliament at present does run on the recognised political party model.I must make it clear that, as you know, I oppose the appointment model, but this is a mechanism which I believe widens the consultation and widens the prospect of the appointed President being less of the potential creature, if you want to express it that way, of one political party. It is not automatic that it would happen that way. I think the Labor Party in its term of office made some extremely useful appointments in the Governor-General role, and we all in this chamber have immense admiration, I think—I certainly have not heard anyone ever express otherwise—for the present Governor-General. So I am not imputing a bad motive automatically based on past practice, but I am indicating that for the future the proposal I put forward adds more to the appointment model than it has at present. Of course, I should qualify all my remarks throughout by making it clear that I oppose the appointment model and I am a supporter of direct election, as you know.11:14:007237Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I understand what you are saying, Senator Murray, and understand that you are in favour of the model that directly elects the President. This document, like the original Constitution, is very much a compromise document, as any constitution bill would be. What has got to be taken into account is the practicalities of the situation, together with the manifestations of the aspirations and ideas that we have.It seems to me that the compromise reached in this particular document, where for practical reasons the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition take into account whose name should be put forward before the parliament, is one that strikes people as understandable and reasonable. I am not saying that yours is not but why limit it to five? Why not say everybody should be part of that preliminary process? As you say, there has to be some sort of sense in all of this. All that has been said is that the best sense, in light of the sort of compromise that can be reached, is that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition make the nomination and then it is up to everybody, including the smaller parties and those who do not belong to a party, to debate whether they are going to accept that nomination.11:16:007237Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—In response to Senator Cooney—and I acknowledge that he raises the important issue of compromise and what is workable—if one were to ask the question of what really is wrong with the bill as it currently stands, the Democrats would believe that it entrenches the two-party system. It entrenches the notion that only two leaders count in our political system. That may be a theory to which the two old parties in this chamber subscribe but increasingly many Australians have shown in their voting intentions—and in research it is also evident—that Australians are looking forward to the idea that there may be more smaller parties or even Independents; a multiplicity of views in a multiparty system. But this entrenches that, so from a philosophical and a political point of view that is something to which I and my colleagues object.But also, as Senator Murray has pointed out, who knows what the future holds? It is obviously presumptuous of me to suggest that it does necessarily involve multiparty systems but a lot of the evidence that we are getting—from this country, from the voters, from our constituents and from looking at parliaments across the world—is that indeed that is what the future holds. I think we should be seeking, in updating and modernising our Constitution in this way, not to entrench old systems that entrench two power bases but to look towards more inclusive and consultative mechanisms.I do not see this amendment as not feasible or as completely unworkable. I think it is an important caveat that it involves the leaders of parties; that is, people with party status, and you can even include the National Party under this notion. So we are not talking about so many groups as to make it unworkable but about enough groups, and the leaders of those groups, to ensure that the nomination is supported—not seconded, because I note that Senator Murray has used the terminology `as supported'—and to do so in a way that ensures that this nomination is acknowledged and welcomed by all. Perhaps that will set a fine precedent and standard for the way in which the community and other groups respond to this Australian head of state.So I would like to see this amendment as part of the process of modernising our Consti tution that we are embarking upon to reflect our changing times including our changing political times—changing times, I hope, that are politically for the better. The Democrats would not be a alone in that. I think we would have strong community support for the notion that this is not about two leaders signing off on a particular nomination; it is about involving other political parties and the representatives that the community has put in the institutions of power here. I commend this amendment. I hope that perhaps the old parties will reconsider their perspective.11:19:007238Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government is unable to support this amendment or the others. It would point to the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention and also of the joint committee on this matter. The convention envisaged a proposed procedure where the committee would invite and consider nominations from the public and give a report on the nominations to the Prime Minister. Following consideration of that report by the nominations committee, the Prime Minister would then move, in a joint sitting of the Commonwealth parliament, that a named Australian citizen be chosen as President. The Leader of the Opposition would second the Prime Minister's motion. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament would then have to approve the Prime Minister's motion.We have there a situation where you have community consultation accommodated by the nominations committee, which will be made up of people drawn from the community and members of parliament. Its nomination then goes to the Prime Minister, who seeks the backing of the Leader of the Opposition. Once that is obtained, it goes forth to the joint sitting of both houses of parliament and there it requires a two-thirds majority. So there are a number of hurdles that have to be negotiated during this process and every one of those affords the people of Australia transparency and accountability in the choice of a President for this nation.The government believes that if we, at that one point in the sequence, introduced a further hurdle whereby that motion had to be supported by another leader of a political party as described by Senator Murray's amendment, you would have the opening up of a possible gridlock situation, as Senator Bolkus has mentioned. I know that is not what Senator Murray intends. He intends that this amendment accommodate more consultation and that it provide a broader base for the proposal of the motion. But the government believes that the proposal of the motion—being the Prime Minister, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition—is sufficient.Perhaps most importantly, this is what the Constitutional Convention envisaged. It is really in accordance with the recommendations made by the joint committee. The joint committee did not say that there should be this aspect, with a further person being sought to support the motion. Senator Cooney's point is a good one because the members of these minor parties and the Independents would be participating in that crucial point of considering the motion. Their views would then be taken on board. For those reasons, the government cannot support this amendment.11:23:007239Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I do support this amendment. We are into a multiparty century. The two-party system is going. Australians, like people elsewhere around the world in all democracies, are looking for greater opportunities for choice. This amendment simply says that a party that has the public backing to have five members of parliament should have a say. Of course they should.I note the comment that this would leave me and Senator Harradine out at the moment, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I look forward to the time when there are plenty of Greens in here to take part in the process. But right around the world, wherever you look, there are multiparty governments and oppositions these days. In fact, the majority of democracies return multiparty governments.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Like the National Party and the Liberals.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, so if the Nationals are interested in fostering the empowerment of their voters, they should support the amendment put forward by the Democrats. It is as simple as that. If they are locked into what the predominant Liberal Party wants, then they will not be supporting it. It is a matter of whether or not they have freedom of choice within that coalition. I think they will be letting down their members if they do not support Senator Murray's amendment.I hope that the One Nation senator comes in here and supports it too if that party thinks it is going to have a number of people in this place further down the line. I note that the senator was not here to support my earlier amendment that the nominations committee be empowered in a way that the Prime Minister could not get around. It is difficult, it is early in the piece, but we are discussing very important democratic processes here. As Senator Murray quite rightly pointed out, this is a once-only opportunity. We are talking about the process for a referendum to set constitutional matters which are going to be very difficult to alter further down the line.Senator Murray's argument that we have moved into a multiparty period in Australia is backed by the fact that you only have to look at the last election to see that 25 per cent plus of people are voting away from the old parties. Should those people not have a double say in this process? That is, the leaders should get together, put forward a nomination and then two-thirds of the parliament should be required to vote for it further down the line. It is easy to bring up a term like `gridlock', but what about a gridlock between Labor and Liberal? We are not resiling from that potential. In fact, the very reason for the Leader of the Opposition being empowered here is to ensure that there is a smooth consensus process in the nomination of a President. If another party in this place had five members, that party should be involved in that. That makes good democratic sense and I support the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Murray's ) be agreed to.11:30:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)11Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Lees, M. H. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.44Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Boswell, R. L. D.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Gibson, B. F.,Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Knowles, S. C. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.11:34:007240Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I would like to advise the Senate of an alteration I need to make to amendment (4) on sheet 1472 revised in view of the last decision of the Senate. The amendment now says:If the Prime Minister's motion is not supported by the leader of each political party with at least 5 members in the Parliament, or is not affirmed . . .After the words `If the Prime Minister's motion is not supported by the leader', the words `of the Opposition' are to be inserted and the words `each political party with at least 5 members in the Parliament' are to be omitted.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Murray, would you care to just clarify that? Would it be better to have `not seconded by the leader of each political party'? That is a repetition of the words above: `seconded by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives'.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—Sorry, Madam Chair; I may not have made myself clear. I intend to take out the words from `each' through to `Parliament'. So out would come `each political party with at least 5 members in the Parliament' to substitute the words `the opposition'. So I will read it to ensure that the Senate is clear on my intention. The amendment will now read:If the Prime Minister's motion is not supported by the Leader of the Opposition or is not affirmed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister must, within 6 weeks of the joint sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, move in another joint sitting that another named Australian citizen be chosen as the President.I would like to make some brief remarks. I hope Senator Brown took note that I used the word `must' in line with my previous support for his intentions in that area. Section 60 does not provide for a scenario where the Prime Minister's nominee is not approved by parliament. We all know that in politics you can never be certain of what is to come. If there is one thing you learn in politics it is that that is a fact. Section 60 should provide that, where the Prime Minister's motion to appoint an individual is unsuccessful, a different candidate must be put forward at another sitting within a specified period. In this amendment I have suggested six weeks. The Senate may choose to vary that period. But the point is that you cannot have a situation which is left without resolution, in my view.You also have to pay attention to the fact that it may be in the interests of the Prime Minister of the day to have such a situation. There may be a time when a Prime Minister might see leaving the office vacant as helpful to his or her political aims, or they might choose to leave the office vacant for a period in order to pressure the parliament to approve a nomination which the parliament or the Leader of the Opposition plainly do not want to support. All this amendment is trying to do is ensure that there cannot be such an event.I do not believe from my understanding and reading of the Constitutional Convention's proposals or my understanding and reading of the committee report or indeed of anything I have heard from the supporters of the appointment model that what I am proposing goes against either the spirit or the intention of what they were trying to pursue. In a sense, this is a technical amendment, but I also think it covers an area where there might be genuine political dangers. I think it is wise to guard against them. Accordingly, with those brief remarks, I move:(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 5), insert:If the Prime Minister's motion is not supported by the leader of the opposition, or is not affirmed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister must, within 6 weeks of the joint sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, move in another joint sitting that another named Australian citizen be chosen as the President.The second paragraph of this section applies to any joint sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives convened to choose a President.11:38:007241Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition opposes this amendment. It is a technical one. We do not think it is necessary. We anticipate, and I think quite fairly so, that the pressures of the time will ensure that if the first nominee is not accepted by the houses of parliament there will very quickly be action to ensure that someone is appointed to the position of President. Politically, it would leave a vacuum at the top of the constitutional structure and parliaments would be compelled to act.This might be a technical question, but it is also one which has a number of unintended consequences. I think the committee ought to be aware of those as well, because I think Senator Murray is indulging, maybe unwittingly, in a degree of trickery this time. He recommits the issue of `may' or `must'. He has acknowledged that. But what he is also doing here is broadening the range of people who would be eligible to be appointed President after the initial nominee fails. He says in the last part of his amendment `that another named Australian citizen be chosen as the President'. The range of people who are eligible to be chosen for the President the first time around is in fact a smaller range than Australian citizens. The prerequisite qualification provisions are in the bill. They are linked very clearly to eligibility and qualification for the houses of the Australian parliament.The wording in Senator Murray's amendment widens that. To be qualified to be a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate you cannot, for instance, be a person holding joint citizenship. You have to have renounced any other citizenship to which you may be entitled. Your provision does not have that qualification proviso. Your provision says `any named Australian citizen', and that is indeed much wider than the qualification provisions for the first nominee. The amendment, unnecessary and technical though it might be, also has a number of unintended consequences. The opposition cannot support it.11:40:007241Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the amendment. I would suggest to Senator Murray that the words `of the joint sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives' can be deleted because that would mean that the Prime Minister would have to act within six weeks of either not getting the support of the Leader of the Opposition or not getting the two-thirds majority required from the Australian parliament.Senator Bolkus says that this is technical and not necessary in the event of the Prime Minister not naming another candidate for President because parliaments would be compelled to act. But what Senator Murray is doing here is laying down a prescription for action and laying down a directive in the Constitution that the Prime Minister cannot, due to lack of instruction from the Constitution, get away with leaving the presidency vacant.We are charged with the responsibility of writing laws that, as far as possible, are simple, understandable, clear and which cover major exigencies. That is what Senator Murray's amendment does. It is rather fatuous of the Labor Party or the government to simply say, `Oh well, we'll leave it to the political pressure of the day to solve the problem,' when here we have the opportunity of laying down a prescription which is not going to allow the problem to occur in the first place. It is a very simple amendment that Senator Murray is putting forward. It is a sensible one, and I support it.11:42:007242Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—During the great 1890 debates about the development of the Constitution, Sir Isaac Isaacs, who was then Attorney-General of Victoria, had the occasion to say that what we wanted was a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution. He was saying that in the context of people introducing laws in an attempt to make the Constitution popular in the sense of `of the people' and democratic by making sure the system was fair and there was a proper balance. But, in trying to do that, they brought forward such an array of laws that the matter became subject to interpretation and subject to the lawyers and the courts.What has been overlooked here is the political pressure. This is a political chamber. It relies very much on the force of the people through the political power they have not only at the ballot box but also in terms of the reaction they take to particular propositions. It seems to me that, if we want it to remain a people's Constitution, the Prime Minister has to be subject to that popular pressure. To take away that direct pressure of the people and to put this into the hands of the courts seems to me to be against the thrust of what we should be about and falls into that category against which Sir Isaac Isaacs counselled back in the 1890s.11:44:007242Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset, I associate myself with the remarks of my learned friend Senator Cooney. Certainly, increased prescription increases the recipe for litigation, for the intervention of the courts, which is undesirable. The court of public opinion would have great effect here and has had great effect since Federation in 1901.It is the government's view that to have the prescription of a six-week time limit would be unreasonable and would lead to the sort of scrutiny mentioned by Senator Cooney. The process would not be accommodated adequately by having that six-week time limit. If the parliament could not achieve a two-thirds majority to approve the candidate for President then the process would have to be started again. There is no reason the repeat process should not go through the same processes as in the first instance. What you are saying here is that if you get it wrong in the first instance you do not do the same again; you do a much shorter version of the first try.The government is of the view that this would be unduly prescriptive and that it would be appropriate to go back and start again. There is a provision for an Acting President and there would be no harm done if an Acting President was appointed in the interim. That person would be the most senior state Governor at the time. That would be an adequate circumstance. One other thing I will point out—and this is a very strong point—is that this was not something that came from the Constitutional Convention or the joint select committee.11:46:007242Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Sir Isaac Isaacs said to give power to the people and we have been repeating that in our own way this morning. Senator Cooney and the government are saying, `Yes, but not to the lawyers.' He did not mean for it to be given to the politicians. He certainly did not mean for it all to be accreted to the Prime Minister and the unelected advisers in the Prime Minister's office.We are saying that the Prime Minister should have to act to appoint a President. We have failed to establish that the people's nominations will necessarily be the ones the Prime Minister puts forward. Senator Ellison, in representing the government, is now saying, `You would have to go back and start the process again.' I submit that a Prime Minister worth his or her salt would go straight back to the nominations and put forward an alterna tive. To leave the space vacant might seem appealing to the big parties whose Prime Minister is going to be in office at the time because it would give all power to the Prime Minister but it is not in the best interests of the people.For Senator Ellison to suggest that the Prime Minister would not have the wit or wisdom in these circumstances to come up with another nominee within six weeks is laughable. Of course they would. Senator Bolkus said, `In this circumstance, parliaments would be compelled to act and there would be political pressure put on them.' That is the same as saying six weeks is plenty of time. The Prime Minister would have to act. All the better if, in the Constitution, there is a time limit. To suggest that six weeks is not enough time to put forward a nomination to fill a vacancy does not withstand any sort of scrutiny.Once again, we are putting a very limited but reasonable set of guidelines to a Prime Minister in office to contain that Prime Minister so that they simply cannot make this into a political football match, that they have some limitations on what they do and that, if we do get into a mess over the appointment of a President further down the line, the Australian people are simply not left to wait out the duration of whichever government is in power at the time before they can do something about it at the ballot box. This amendment put forward by Senator Murray is very reasonable. I am amazed that Labor, let alone the government, are not supporting it.Amendment not agreed to.11:50:007243Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move government amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 6 to 12), omit the paragraph, substitute: The person named in the Prime Minister's motion is qualified to be chosen as President if, when the motion is moved and affirmed: (i) the person is qualified to be, and capable of being chosen as, a member of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the person is not a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a State Parliament or Territory legislature, or a member of a political party.This amendment arises from issues dealt with in paragraph 3.74 and onwards of the joint select committee report. It deals with the point at which someone should be qualified to be considered as a candidate for President. We have provided in section 60:(i) the person is qualified to be, and capable of being chosen as, a member of the House of Representatives; and(ii) the person is not a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a State Parliament or Territory legislature, or a member of a political party.There were some queries raised during the hearings of the joint committee that you might have some very good people who are ineligible to qualify as President but nonetheless could still be so because they could remedy those disabilities, if you like, in the interim. It was thought that the effect of this section, in its current form, might preclude good people from being considered whilst they were not eligible to qualify as President notwithstanding that they could subsequently qualify. The committee report states:While acknowledging that proposed s.60 in its present form is probably satisfactory, the Committee takes the view that it would be valuable if the Republic Bill contained an express statement of exactly when the qualification requirements must be satisfied. The Committee suggests that the appropriate time would be at the time the Prime Minister puts the motion to Parliament.That is when the Prime Minister, with the seconding of the Leader of the Opposition, would go to the joint houses of the parliament and put up the name of the candidate. At that point the candidate should be qualified. So we propose to amend section 60 to allow that. Previously, whilst the nominations committee is considering eligible candidates or prospective candidates, that person may or may not meet the qualifications for President but in the interim that can be remedied. If you did have it so rigid, you could rule out the consideration of what might be some excellent candidates for President.The government thought that section 60 could accommodate that but, having regard to the concerns of the committee, the govern ment thought it would make it absolutely clear. So we have made a slight alteration to the wording of this amendment to read:The person named in the Prime Minister's motion is qualified to be chosen as President if, when the motion is moved and affirmed:(i) the person is qualified to be, and capable of being chosen as, a member of the House of Representatives; and(ii) the person is not a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a State Parliament or Territory legislature, or a member of a political party.The seminal point in time, if you like, is when that person's name is put forward in the parliament. Previously, that person does not have to qualify so long as they qualify at the time the motion is put. I think the amendment is a sensible one and I commend it to the Senate.11:53:007244Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports this amendment. Senator Ellison is right. This is one of those recommendations that came from the joint select committee. It received the unanimous support of those present at the final meeting of the committee. I do not know that there is all that much to add to what Senator Ellison has said. The committee was concerned as to fixing the appropriate timing for the requisites of the qualification provisions. It has done so in the terms of recommendation 5, which is reflected in the government's amendment. Accordingly, we support it.11:54:007244Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Similarly, the Australian Democrats support the amendment before the Chair and also acknowledge that this received majority support from the advisory committee.11:54:007244Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would like to ask the minister: is this amendment being designed so that a member of parliament who is favoured by the Prime Minister to become the President is able to resign from the parliament and from the political party to take up that nomination?11:55:007244Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Senator Brown has expressed my sentiments exactly. I think this is an absolutely delicious amendment. I am not going to oppose it, but I regard it as delicious because it is designed to put another little firework, if you like, in the whole republic debate. Out there the supporters of the appointment model have been busy running the myth, the untruth, the misrepresentation that the appointment model will somehow prevent politicians becoming the President of the republic of Australia. As we know, that is arrant nonsense in terms of the history of Australia. Two-thirds of all governors-general have been politicians and I, for one, am a great supporter of any politician with the appropriate credentials becoming the President. Why not? They are people who have great experience of affairs of state. I can think of many past parliamentarians who would fulfil the office of President very acceptably in my view, so I have no philosophical opposition to this.But let us make it clear—and this is why I regard it as so delicious in this debate—that instead of the previous part of the bill which would have prevented any member of parliament being put forward as a nominee to the committee, because they would have had to resign before they could even be put forward to be chosen, now they can be discussed whilst they are a sitting member and, if put forward, then they can resign once the deal is done. I think this is absolutely exquisite. Here is the way in which a serving politician can become President.Let me say to everybody again: I do not object to a politician being President but let nobody who supports the appointed model run around and say that their model will guarantee that politicians do not run the show, do not elect the President, do not fix whom the President will be and do not manoeuvre the situation so they can get a President in if that is what they wish. Of course they might choose not to do so. They might choose to pursue a very esteemed judge, as we have at present, and that is terrific. But I really do enjoy this amendment and I support it wholeheartedly.11:57:007244Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think one of the consequences of this legislation will be that members of parliament and former members of parliament will not become President. We will be reporting progress in a few minutes to hear a first speech, so I leave Senator Murray with this challenge: I ask you to give us the name of one member of parliament on one side of parliament who you think would be acceptable to the other side of parliament in order to achieve a two-thirds majority of the parliament for appointment as President. Just think about that for the next few hours or so.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Tim Fischer.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—It would have to be a very rare bird. It might be Tim Fischer; it might be Brian Harradine.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—It might be Gareth Evans.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I tell you what: you would not get a nomination for Gareth Evans through the prime ministerial office. The challenge is to come up with one name from one side of parliament which would be acceptable to the other side. Give us a list when we resume this debate if you can. It will not be me.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—It being almost 12 noon, I propose that the committee report progress.Progress reported.First Speech724510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Before I call Senator Tchen, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech and, therefore, I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.11:59:007245Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP11—Madam President, I thank you for the privilege to speak to this assembly for the first time. I offer you my sincere congratulations for your unopposed re-election last Monday. The unanimous and enthusiastic praises offered to you on Monday by all parties on that occasion clearly indicate how well you have occupied this office these past three years. I am sure that your coming term will prove to be equally successful. I should also offer my congratulations to Senator West for her unopposed re-election as Deputy President. I trust that she will accept that what I have just said about you, Madam President, equally applies to her.It is a great honour for any individual to become a member of the Australian Senate. I am very conscious of that. When I first came to Australia 42 years ago as a young man still at school, the thought of one day becoming a member of the Australian Senate was far from my mind. Indeed, even the possibility of becoming an Australian citizen was not really on the agenda, as I did not expect to stay longer than the completion of my studies. In those days, Australia was still thought of as white Australia. People of Asian background and, indeed, even Europeans of non-British background were not generally welcome as settlers, although the construction of the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme and the inflow of migrants to meet this demand and other labour demands were beginning to cause a change in attitude.Since then, as a result of continuing urban development coupled with maintenance of a steady inflow of migrants, Australia has grown and changed from an isolated outpost of England, a minor player in the affairs of the British Empire, to be a significant power in the Asia-Pacific region. We were then a supplier of low value primary products to the British Isles. We are now a mixed trading nation strong enough to stand the impact of the East Asian economic meltdown without so much as losing a beat. We were then a cultural backwater best known for being the set of the filming of On the beach, a film about the end of the world. Today we boast some of the most livable cities in the world. We were then an emphatically single culture society. We are now one of the most successful multicultural societies in the world, where people who would have been at each other's throats, had they stayed in the places they came from, now live and work peacefully side by side.As a nation, we have improved our station significantly. The evolution of our multicultural society is both the cause and the result of this improvement. Today, more than one in three of the adult population of Australia was born in other countries, some of which no longer exist except in memory. More than one in four of the population speaks a language other than English. It is in this context that I think that my election to the Senate has special significance, serving as a reinforcing symbol and a call to those who are Australians by choice that they belong. It is also an act of affirmation by the people of Australia that every Australian, regardless of his or her cultural or historic background, stands equal in the eyes of his or her fellow citizens.As we enter the 21st century, the world we are in is, in many respects, a place of even greater uncertainty. In this world, Australia, with the advantage of our geography and our history, has the chance to become a source of hope and an example for all to follow. We have a responsibility to make multiculturalism—that means an equal right and opportunity for every citizen to contribute to the growth and development of our common community—work for Australia and contribute to world peace and prosperity.I am both proud and humbled that I now have the opportunity to be a harbinger of hope from Australia to the rest of the world. This would not be possible without the support and endorsement of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party and its members have, for many years, given me much appreciated fellowship and encouragement, for which I thank them. I especially thank the Victorian division of the Liberal Party for having the confidence and the courage to choose me by way of a well-proven, merit based preselection process to represent the Liberal Party before the people of Victoria, who were pleased to endorse me.I am proud and gratified that all this has come to pass and that I am here. My mission now is to serve in the Senate for the advancement of Australia and Australians to the best of my ability, and I shall do so according to the Liberal principles of freedom, responsibility, endeavour and compassion. I am proud to be a long-serving and committed member of the Liberal Party. As Liberals, we share a belief in the fundamental freedoms of man—freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom to speak and freedom to worship. As a group of individuals, we share a belief that it is not only our right but also our responsibility to develop our aspirations to the best of our ability and to allow others to develop their aspirations in a like manner. We share a belief in compassion and responsibility for our fellow men and women. We share a belief in the moral courage and decency, imagination and creativities of the Australian people. Finally, we share an appreciation of the uniquely Australian values of a fair go, of giving it one's best shot and of mateship.I acknowledge that our political opponents, the Labor Party, also espouse some values similar to our beliefs. This is fortunate, since it gives us the opportunity of dialogue, though limited because of Labor's obligatory intractabilities. Nonetheless, there is a fundamental difference between us. Our beliefs are founded on the concepts of individual initiatives and individual responsibility. The Labor Party's dogma, on the other hand, denies that the concept of the individual exists or has any beneficial quality. Consequently, the Labor Party does not believe anything should be done by the individual; rather, it believes everything must be done for the individual.We see this difference most obviously in how members of the Labor Party persistently use the term `the government' as something intrinsically and distinctly different from `the people'. They say, `The government must do this or that,' `Why doesn't the government do that?' and so on. But what is government if it is not the people? Are we not a democracy? Do we not have a government of the people, for the people and by the people? Why should the government and the community of people be separate entities?If you suppose the government is to be an entity separate from the people who created it, you diminish the people. If you empower the government more than necessary, you diminish the individual's ability to flourish. Every function you allow the government to take over makes the individual less self-reliant. We say the government should have only those functions that individuals, or a cooperative collection of individuals, are not able to carry out efficiently. A government should be only large enough to carry out its designed purposes efficiently. Overall efficiency in the delivery of goods and services in accordance with a community's needs is the final measure of whether government should be involved in an enterprise.In a democratic society, government is not an end in itself but only the means to achieve an end—the community's gain. Public sector profit is not community wealth unless it generates wealth within a community. Public sector employment creation does not reduce long-term unemployment unless it facilitates and supports the ability of individuals within the community to create new jobs. Therefore, I believe all Australians would endorse the policies that the Howard government has implemented to successfully restore and strengthen Australia's economic framework. I believe the government's planned legislation to further strengthen frameworks for the economy and for employment, education, health and regional services is essential for the betterment of Australia. I shall look forward to making a contribution in critical areas.I come to the Senate with the single objective of serving the interests of Australia as a senator of Liberal persuasion representing the people of Victoria. I come without a personal agenda or burning issues to champion. Having said this, I do have a number of issues which I would like to lay before senators for their consideration. These are underlying issues. Madam President, as I am not very good at controlling time yet, perhaps you would permit me to raise them later if I have time.I would now like to give thanks to the many people who have encouraged me and supported me over the years. I recall a Chinese proverb that says, `When at home, one could depend on one's parents for comfort but, when away, one must look to one's friends for support.' I left home at an early age to come to Australia. To get to where I am today, I have been fortunate to have had many such friends to whom I could look and have looked for support. There are too many to thank individually, except those who are present. I hope that absent friends will recognise themselves in those who are here as their representatives. I would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of these people. I thank the senators on this side, particularly the leadership team; my Victorian colleagues; and Senator Cooney on the other side, a gentleman and a scholar—a member of the Labor Party notwithstanding.I would also like to say welcome to those who are present from my fellow class of 1999, or the `Y2K minus 1' intake. I know Senator Mason, Senator Ludwig, Senator McLucas and Senator Greig are all part of a generational change that occurs from time to time and which is the underlying strength of our parliamentary system. I wish them a successful and rewarding career. Senator Ridgeway, in addition to being part of this generational change, shares with me the role of demonstrating the affirmative endorsement by the mainstream community of our evolving multicultural society. I wish him well also, and I ask him to convey my respects to the Ngunnawal people. At first sight, Senator Harris and I may appear to be heading in diametrically opposed directions. However, if I understand Senator Harris correctly, he and I have common ground as to some of the problems facing our nation. I hope that we have appropriate opportunities to resolve some of those problems cooperatively.Up in the gallery, I see Colin Carson, a typical salt-of-the-earth Liberal Party member. With him is Dr Tom Leung, a fourth generation Chinese Australian whose life and achievements—during a period when to be different was to be suspect—helped to change attitudes towards people from different backgrounds. Thank you for coming. From Sydney, I see Hudson Chen and Eve Chen. As a venture capital merchant banker, Hudson represents the benefits the second wave of Asian migration can bring to Australia. Thank you for coming also.I would be remiss if I failed to mention my lineal predecessor in the Senate. Jim Short was one of the Senate's outstanding quiet achievers. He made his mark during a long career in the Commonwealth parliament, first in the lower house and then, more enduringly, in the Senate. As we all know, his political career was cut short by one of those minute technicalities that from time to time complicate the life of a politician in the manner of a great fuss being made over a small amount of tea being spilt from the cup to the saucer. However, I am pleased to say that, in this case, justice was quickly done. Jim Short has continued to serve Australia's interest from his appointment on the board of the European Reconstruction Bank.Jim Short's contribution to our nation is not limited to his role in parliament, illustrious as it was. He is best remembered, still, for his long and committed effort to building understanding and coherent bonds between Australia's migrant communities and the mainstream community. He succeeded well; I can attest to that without fear of contradiction. He succeeded in migrant communities not because he looked like a member of one of those communities—he certainly did not—or because he spoke their languages—he did not, nor did he pretend to—or because he made promises about what he could or would do for them—he did not. But he listened. This was not because he always had a rollicking good time—in fact, he often looked distinctly lost at ethnic functions. Jim Short was always accepted and welcome because he was always honest, fair and compassionate, in the archetypical manner of a true-blue Australian, in his dealings with people of different backgrounds. That manner is what gives reassurance and confidence to newcomers to this land. We all owe much to Jim Short and others like him for the vitality and stability of our Australian society.I said earlier that I had a couple of issues that, if I had time, I would like to raise for senators' consideration. As a professional town planner before I came to the Senate, one of the matters which I had long been conscious of in our developing nation was that, because of the different pace of different kinds of developments over the years, we quite often find significant discrepancies between availability of service by the provider and accessibility to service and facilities by the user. Because of the way that services and facilities are usually measured—they tend to be measured from the provider's point of view—we quite often get a situation, particularly in country regions, where on paper there is quite an adequate supply of services and yet it is extremely difficult for the person on the ground to actually reach them.I think this is one of the factors which, since 1996 through to 1999, has caused the tremendous political upheaval, particularly in country regions, otherwise known as the One Nation phenomenon. I think this is something which again many other people have noted. I noticed that Senator Payne, in the adjournment debate on Monday night, spoke on the IT disadvantages and information poverty of women, especially in regional areas—this is the sort of thing that I am referring to. The facilities are available on a regional basis, but on the individual basis they are extremely hard to access. I think that is something which we as a nation ought to start thinking about—that is, how to measure availability of service on the basis of access rather than availability.I see that my time is running short, so perhaps I should close. In closing, Madam President, if I may be allowed to say a few words to my family—my family is up there in the gallery. I want to say to Pauline, my wife, friend and partner of 30 years: thank you—down here is where you should be. To my children, Jacinta and Adrian—Adrian is actually not here; he does not want to miss too many lectures: you have brought us much joy and a little pain from time to time, but it is worth it. I say to my father: when I left home you told me, `You are going to a new country to live among strangers. Always remember who you are and where you came from; always behave in such a way that those who knew you will not be disgraced because the new people that you live with will judge them by you. You should always realise where you are going and who you can be. Always strive for purpose, so that the expectation of those among whom you will live shall not be disappointed, because they will be judged by your success or not.' Father, I hope that I have met your wishes.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Before I call Senator Harris, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.12:22:007248Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND01—Madam President, as a new member of this house, I thank the people of Queensland for their courage in voting for Pauline Hanson's One Nation. This seat was won by Heather Hill, who led One Nation's Senate ticket. A High Court challenge and a controversial decision that Great Britain is a foreign power under the terms of the Australian Constitution ruled Heather ineligible to take her place in this chamber. I respect Heather and have no doubt that she would have made a fine representative in the Senate for the people of Queensland.I have been given an opportunity that I will not take lightly or for granted. I am pleased that Heather with Bronwyn, Brett and Joan are working with me to achieve the goals and objectives that have made Pauline Hanson's One Nation a new political force. This change is long overdue in a country that has been governed for too long by Tweedledee and Tweedledum.I wish to make a very special thank you to my wife, Betty; to my children, Kent, Brendon and Dene, and their partners; and to my parents, Enid and Jack. To the team in North Queensland: thank you for your support.We believe that truth will always prevail. We are very conscious of the words of Arthur Schopenhauer:All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.I am going to use this opportunity to peel away the myths surrounding One Nation and present some facts; to explain the platform of positive changes that drove me to stand up for my children and grandchildren and future generations of Australians; and to present the positive faces of those involved in this new development in Australia's political history.I believe that a safe, secure and prosperous society depends on the integrity and sanctity of the traditional family unit. I am appalled that approximately one million children do not live with their fathers in Australia. During my trips around Queensland, I have been inundated with pleas for help from non-custodial parents who have been deprived of access to their children. Divorce is unfortunate but possibly the only solution for some families. But we must remember that children ideally should have a mother and a father. Denial of parental and grandparents' contact with children I believe is synonymous with child abuse.Maintenance is a necessary tool to ensure that parents do not abdicate their parental responsibilities. But providers should not be forced into poverty and a position that restricts their opportunity to develop a new family. We advocate that the Family Law Court should be abolished and replaced with family tribunals. The current system is too expensive and too adversarial, and children are used like pawns in a game of chess. Family tribunals allow for consultation with no legal representation where quick talking and well-paid lawyers can confuse the issue.Senior Magistrate Stan Deers has accused some partners of using domestic violence orders to enhance their opportunity to seek custody of their children, as stated in the Courier-Mail on 5 July 1995. People who make vexatious or malicious domestic violence orders should face the full force of the law and pay costs.The current formula for determining child maintenance is unfair and unworkable and needs to be scrapped. Non-custodial parents want to provide for their children, but under the current system most are left in a life of poverty with no future of having another family life and in a lot of cases unemployed because that is the only way to survive. Suicide and murder have plagued many families. Members of the parliament must work together to find fair solutions.The disabled in our society are some of the most overlooked members of our community. We recognise that many Australians have disabilities and benefit from, and contribute to, living in the community, but there are others who require centre based care. Both options require services with realistic staffing levels and adequate funding as a priority.Aged care is not a social welfare burden; it is a just entitlement. The current consumer price index based method of calculating benefits does not reflect the cost of living of our pensioners. Self-funded retirees have worked responsibly to provide for themselves in their later years only to be faced with deeming on their investments. Deeming on their investments, savings and transfer of assets should be abolished. Community transport services, home help and support services are provided to ensure that the elderly can enjoy a safe and comfortable lifestyle in their surroundings for as long as they desire. It is time that we stopped expecting the aged and frail to erect bars on their windows and live in a virtual prison whilst criminals are treated with kid gloves. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for adopting One Nation policy and recommending a referendum on capital punishment.Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to state my position on a controversial subject and correct some of the misunderstandings and untruths that have been propagated by our political opponents. As a result of Pauline raising the issue of immigration, it is pleasing to see that the major political parties have reassessed their policies. Australia has benefited from immigration. However, there is no doubt that previous government immigration, population policies and practices were implemented for their votes and not for the wellbeing and future of our nation, as stated by Barry Jones, the previous member for Lalor.The fact is that, until very recently, the discussion of immigration was sternly discouraged because the government and the opposition did not want to discuss it, along with many other issues. The policy of immigration requires a process of balance. On one hand we have concern for the migrant and on the other we have concern for the host country and its people who will be supporting, accepting and providing a new home for the migrant. Employment, hospitals, nursing homes and infrastructure must be addressed before any future burden is carried by the taxpayers and all Australians.Our policy of net zero immigration would result in approximately 30,000 new immigrations each year. Our policy of not exceeding net zero immigration is because we believe Australia is near her carrying capacity. A population policy must be the result of unbiased scientific thinking and must not be highjacked by self-interested pro-immigration elites, including big business who are all too frequently chasing profits, not Australia's interests. Immigration mistakes are big mistakes; they do not go away, they just continue to get more expensive for the Australian taxpayer.Quality in the immigration debate is still lacking, particularly from some of our political and media opponents. There are still many legitimate questions to be asked regarding Australia's population and immigration policy, and I defend the rights of Australian people to continue to discuss and determine these issues.Multiculturalism should be killed stone dead. Immigration could have a negative impact on Australia. The Labor Party was a haven for a growing band of family dynasties. Bill Hayden, a former Governor-General and Leader of the Labor Party, made the statement that endorses One Nation's principles. Australia is a multiracial country but multiculturalism will destroy us as a nation and a cohesive society. Whatever our cultural background may be we must consider ourselves to be Australians first and foremost. As one migrant has stated to me, home is not where you are born but where you are prepared to die.The Australian on 27 July 1999 carried a report from the Social Policy Research Centre that states that almost one-third of Australians feel they have lost control of their economic future and worry about losing their jobs. The orthodox economic policies implemented by our governments have clearly failed to improve the standard of living for the majority of Australian people.Pauline Hanson's One Nation is strongly opposed to free trade as it currently operates. Our citrus, lamb, pork, rice and sugar industries, to name a few, have found out the hard way that free trade is a misnomer. We want fair trade, not free trade. We also oppose the policies that have sent our manufacturing industries overseas, along with thousands of Australian jobs. No country can remain wealthy without a strong manufacturing and value adding industrial base. We are increasingly dependent on foreign goods to satisfy basic demands, creating more social and economic problems. The only way out of this mess is to re-industrialise this country. We have to stop being the world's quarry pit and start transforming our natural resources into finished products. It makes no sense to sell iron ore for a pittance and buy back steel. It makes no sense to export woodchips and import paper. It makes no sense to export silica sand and import fibre optics. Our rural industries need support to transform their raw commodities to value added products. Steps must be taken to protect our standard of living by increasing selective tariffs to protect Australian jobs.We need to further encourage Australian industries by introducing truth in labelling that will enable consumers to clearly identify genuinely Australian owned and made products. Most Australians will buy Australian made and owned products if they can find them on the grocery shelves. Australia must not be seen as a tax haven for multinationals who pay little or no tax at all, while small business and PAYE citizens carry the burden. If they do not like it, they can leave and small business and Australian companies will fill the void.Foreign ownership of our enterprises should not exceed 49 per cent. Foreign ownership of our assets is unacceptably high. We have signed 41 international tax agreements which give foreign owned companies a competitive advantage over Australian companies. By virtue of paying little or no tax they have a market advantage that enables them to out price and out service those Australian companies and businesses which pay their taxes. The government does not publish accurate and concise information about the level of foreign ownership of our land, businesses, companies and natural resources. When Pauline Hanson was a member of parliament even she could not access this information. What hope does the general public have?Multinationals buy out their competition and monopolise the markets. Examples of multinationals destroying Australian owned companies are Conagra and Boral. Not only have they bought out their competitors and monopolised the market but government has financially assisted one of these multinationals in their expansion, whilst their Queensland owned competitor was thrown to the wolves and Queenslanders lost their jobs. We must protect Australian industries and protect Australian jobs like the United States protects theirs.National competition policy is a textbook theory which has failed in practice. The Labor government must be held accountable for the pain and suffering inflicted on the Australian people through its national competition policy legislation. Proudly introduced and implemented by Mr Keating and the Labor Party and supported by the Liberal and National parties, this legislation has destroyed and continues to destroy the livelihoods of many in rural and regional areas, especially is Queensland, which is the most decentralised state in Australia.Australians are demoralised at having a government and its agencies fail to defend our country's interests. The devastation of the lamb, pork and rice industries and the government's recent decision to allow the importation of salmon, with its potential to irreversibly damage the environment and industry, are unforgivable. The government are acting against the interests of those people who voted them in as their representatives to protect their rights and interests. Are milk, bread, electricity or local government rates any cheaper as a result of the national competition policy? A mixture of market forces and government controls in certain circumstances can operate for the overall public benefit. Although the economic purists hate to admit it, this mixture of market forces and government intervention is necessary to preserve an adequate level of competition and consumer choice. This mixture preserves the economic opportunities for the whole community, not just the big end of town.The main problem with the national competition policy has been its overzealous implementation with little or no regard to the anti-competitive nature of unregulated markets and with little or no regard to the very real social costs of national competition policy. Pauline Hanson's One Nation supports a mixed economy that has two sorts of government controls: controls on big business that prevent oligopolies and outright monopolies forming, and measures that support small and medium size business to compete with big business. This counterbalances advantages enjoyed by the multinationals and big business, which include superior purchasing power, taxation advantages and economies of scale. This helps to ensure that the elusive level playing field can be achieved. The economic cost to consumers of protecting manufacturing industry is justified by the social benefits, more Australian jobs and less Australian debt. Australia is resource rich. We should be leading world technology, not selling our intellectual resources overseas where multinational companies can exploit them with minimal benefits for Australians.The protection of our workers' entitlements is very important, and I am pleased to see that the government and the opposition are now taking this matter seriously. However, it was not until Pauline Hanson released her policy to protect workers' entitlements in 1998 that Labor or the coalition displayed an enthusiasm to fix this most serious problem.Inland tourism is an industry with fantastic potential to be developed. For too long Australian promotions have concentrated on the eastern seaboard. The Australian outback is beautiful, and I will be doing my best to ensure that we promote the western side of the Great Divide to tourists and overseas visitors as well as the eastern seaboard.Small businesses are doing it tough for a variety of reasons, but our unfair dismissal laws are adding to the problem. Unfair dismissal legislation as it presently stands is a disincentive to increasing small business employment, and I would like to work with the government to help our small business operators achieve their full potential.There is a place for unions in Australia to protect the workers' rights. Enterprise bargaining has the potential to take away hard fought rights of workers. We do not support compulsory unionism, as it is an infringement of freedom of choice and freedom of association and encourages complacency on the part of the unions. We do not approve of the practice of channelling money from membership fees to political parties without the authorisation of the member.Australians have a long and for the most part successful relationship with firearms, and I do not believe that imposing national gun laws was the correct action to deal with an increasingly violent, divided and amoral society. We believe that decent, law-abiding citizens should have reasonable access to firearms for legitimate reasons.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Harris, you have gone over your time. Could you bring your speech to a conclusion, please?8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—I have always greatly admired Gandhi, and I believe his thoughts to conclude my maiden speech are fitting. I ask members of the chamber to reflect on these words:The things that will destroy us are politicians without principle, pleasure without conscience, wealth without work, knowledge without character, science without humanity and business without morality.Madam President, with humility, diligence and the grace of God, I, Leonard William Harris, pledge to serve each individual Australian, so help me God. I swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each Australian and fight to defend our rights and liberties.Matters of Public Interest725210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., pursuant to order we turn to matters of public interest.725212:45:007252Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I have today written to the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which is currently reviewing the recommendations by John Reeves QC on the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976, and also to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator John Herron. I have referred to the committee and the minister important evidence and documents from a recent Supreme Court of the Northern Territory case before Justice Angel. The case, Peter Julian Hansen v. Northern Land Coun cil, raises additional questions for the committee's examination of the Reeves report and the administration of Northern Territory land councils, particularly the Northern Land Council.The evidence presented in this unfair dismissal case, which includes documents subpoenaed from the Northern Land Council, shows that the executive officers of the NLC developed a sophisticated scheme to misappropriate moneys from the then Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account (ABTA), now known as the Aboriginal Benefits Reserve (ABR). The illegal and immoral actions of the Northern Land Council and its executive relating to this scam initially took place in 1991. Unfortunately, the Labor government turned a blind eye to proper scrutiny and supervision of the land councils for obvious political reasons.These activities were nothing more than a series of corporate raids by some Aboriginal leaders and their legal advisers. It amounted to a scheme to gain control of assets in case the land councils were ever to be taken out of legislative existence. The scheme revolved around the purchase of a building in Darwin, Mitbul House, by the NLC and four regional offices in Borroloola, Daly River, Timber Creek and Ngukurr. It involved a complex creative accounting scheme and utilised a veil of companies and trusts.A dummy organisation with charitable status was set up, called the North Australian Aboriginal Corporation (NAAC). This organisation channelled the misappropriated funds from the ABTA through the North Australian Investment Corporation (NAIC), acting as a trustee through the Northern Australian Aboriginal Charitable Trust (NAACT). A sum of $1,667,726 was initially misappropriated from the ABTA and used to purchase Mitbul House, the current NLC offices. A further sum of approximately $500,000 was misappropriated and relates to the regional offices. Let me quote from the chronological review of trial evidence by the plaintiff's lawyers, which was submitted to Justice Angel:At 23/7/91 "Between this date and 31 December 1991, in breach of s.35(1) and s.36 of Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act, the Defendant paid $1,667,726 of its available funds to NAAC (an inappropriate recipient set up by the NLC and NAIC and in fact a sham entity) being payments not approved by the Minister under s.34, and being $501,238 in excess of any payment that could be authorized by s.35(1), on any interpretation."The boards of these front organisations were largely composed of the same people and, astoundingly, this is even acknowledged in the 1991-92 Northern Land Council annual report with the following line:The members of N.A.A.C. are the Trustees of the North Australian Charitable Trust and the Trustees of the Trust are the Directors of the Northern Aboriginal Investment Corporation (N.A.I.C.).The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the time, the Hon. Robert Tickner, gave specific instructions regarding the use of surplus funds from the ABTA and, unfortunately, the NLC executive actively conspired to deceive the minister. Rent was charged by the NAAC to the NLC at the rate of $340,000 per annum, a further misuse of moneys which should have been going to Aboriginal people throughout the Northern Territory for their benefit.But, in a further damning indictment of these sham organisations, the directors of the NAAC—of which Mick Dodson was one—approved the rental moneys that the NAAC received from the NLC being treated as a grant to the Northern Aboriginal Investment Corporation (NAIC). Let me quote again from the trial evidence:"No more cogent evidence of NAAC's sham character could be adduced. The defendant's "rent", in the order of $340,000 per annum, did not begin until 1/7/91 and this record clearly shows that from that date the Defendant paid its "rent" to NAIC not to NAAC and even more importantly NAIC treated the money as belonging to it."It is interesting to note the conflicts of interests of many NLC officials. Mick Dodson—who subsequently became Labor's appointed Social Justice Commissioner—as director of the NLC played a big hand in this scheme. He was aware of it, he condoned it and he worked actively with others to achieve it.Another of those whom Mr Dodson worked with was his mentor and predecessor as director of the NLC, Mr John Ah Kit. Mr Ah Kit, now the member for Arnhem in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, was the director of the NLC when the scheme was concocted. He is one of those responsible for this misuse of power and ABTA funds. Mr Ah Kit should resign from parliament, as the very people he claims to represent are those that have suffered due to the fact they have not received funds that are rightfully theirs.I have recently called for the activities of the then, and now, Labor Northern Territory federal member, Warren Snowdon, and the Northern Land Council to be investigated by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There is evidence from the Hansen v. Northern Land Council trial judgment that shows a close and improper relationship between Mr Snowdon and the NLC, particularly in relation to the drafting of correspondence for the NLC by Mr Snowdon and assistance during elections.One wonders just how far this close relationship goes, what involvement Mr Snowdon had with the NLC in-group and whether he knew of any cover-up with the Labor minister for aboriginal affairs. If he was involved, like Mr Ah Kit, he should resign from parliament. The particularly worrying aspect of this scheme, apart from the obvious improprieties, is the fact that it took a Supreme Court case for the evidence to be forthcoming. At no stage was an effort made by any subsequent executive of the NLC to resolve the issue and return the misappropriated funds to the Aboriginal benefits reserve.In fact, over the course of several years there has been an active effort by many at the NLC to cover up this conspiracy. This is a despicable state of affairs and those involved should hang their heads in shame. The hypocrisy of these so-called Aboriginal leaders is absolutely breathtaking. They should apologise to their Aboriginal constituency in the Northern Territory for the wrong that they have bestowed on them. This is not simply a case of money being misused and abused by those who felt they did not need to be accountable to anyone, including their own people, but much more. It is an example of the misuse of `surplus' funds leading to the need for subsequent budget and staff cuts, with a resultant lack of service to the NLC's constituency—the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.It is an example of Aboriginal leaders and their policy advisers misleading their own people and doing what they think is best for them—paternalism at its worst. Worst of all, it is an example of people in positions of power abusing a trust that is placed in them to serve honourably. It is a pity that this type of thing makes it much more difficult for honest Aboriginal leaders to overcome the stereotypes and prejudices created by such crooks.The matters raised in evidence to the Supreme Court now require urgent attention by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Further detailed inquiry must be undertaken as a matter of urgency to correct past breaches of trust and to ensure that the future administration of land councils is on a proper footing.In his judgment on the NLC v. Hansen case, Justice Angel made very discerning and concerning comments about the honesty, reliability, motives and characters of Mr Mick Dodson and the former NLC staffer, now spin doctor to Warren Snowdon, Mr Tony Haritos. In his judgment, Justice Angel said the following regarding Mr Dodson's evidence:Mr Dodson, whilst having the opportunity to refresh his memory from contemporaneous records of the defendant, did not do so. He lacked a memory for detail, was not as conscientious as he might have been, and I regret to say, on occasions, did not give honest answers.This is extremely strong and damning language from a Supreme Court judge, particularly when it concerns a person of Mick Dodson's public standing—a former Australian of the Year and Social Justice Commissioner. With regard to Tony Haritos, then media officer for the Northern Land Council and now Mr Warren Snowdon's spin doctor, Justice Angel said:Mr Haritos, a former employee of the defendant, was a biased and untrustworthy witness who was quite unreliable. I do not accept the truth of Mr Haritos's evidence, save where it is consistent with the evidence of the plaintiff.Yet again, that is a damning condemnation of a witness by a Supreme Court judge. Mr Haritos was obviously willing to put so much spin on anything that he was told, regardless of the facts, that it would have made Shane Warne proud.I contend that the fiddled trust moneys should revert to the Aboriginal people through the Aboriginal benefits reserve and that Mitbul House should be vested in the ABR, where it rightly belongs. I table Justice Angel's judgment of 12 July 1999 and the plaintiff's written submissions and chronological review of trial evidence.725512:56:007255Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—There has recently been significant comment in the media about the issue of employee entitlements on the bankruptcy of a business—bankruptcies that are contrived or otherwise. The latest case involving loss of entitlements concerns the Oakdale miners. It is fairly well known that the Oakdale miners lost their entitlements on the bankruptcy of the mining company for which they worked. They are owed moneys approximating $6.3 million in redundancy and other entitlements.Today, I would like to touch on some of the issues and the particular problems in solving the matters of the just due legal entitlements of employees on bankruptcy and to suggest a possible option for resolving that particular problem. I note that, regrettably, the Oakdale miners—who were in Canberra yesterday and had a meeting with the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith—went away from this place with the matter unresolved.Once a business is placed in receivership, there is a significant time period—it usually takes a year or two, and sometimes longer—before assets are sold to determine what moneys are left to pay entitlements. That is, of course, if any moneys are left at all. One of the particularly difficult aspects of this is that, if there is money left, employees are not paid first. The employees' entitlements will vary according to the provisions of the indus trial award or agreement that they worked under.The entitlements will also vary according to the length of service of the employee. For example, with long service leave, some employees may be entitled to a payment and others may not, depending on their length of service. The entitlements will include unpaid wages, including accrued annual leave, redundancy pay, sick leave—some awards or agreements provide for the payout of sick leave on termination, particularly in redundancy circumstances—and, finally, the employees superannuation guarantee. These payments can be made by the employer into the fund up to a year after they fall due. Often, the employee's own contributions, where an employee makes contributions, are required to be forwarded to the superannuation fund within 30 days. Unfortunately, these moneys get caught up in the bankruptcy proceedings.As a proportion of the national wages and salaries bill paid, including superannuation, moneys lost by employees in these circumstances are fortunately a very small percentage of total wages, salaries and superannuation. However, for those employees who lose their entitlements, it adds significantly to the worry and the concern that they experience at what is a very painful period during their lives. Also in the broader community the issue has caused concern, and I think that is reflected in the widespread media coverage that employees in these difficult circumstances have received.While stiffening the legal protections will improve the situation to some extent, particularly in the area of Corporations Law, this does not deal with the time delays that occur when bankruptcy proceedings are under way, nor does it ensure full payment of an employee's entitlements. Recently, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Mr Hockey, announced legislation to move the payment of employee entitlements to first priority once bankruptcy proceedings are completed. However, the Liberal-National Party government appear very reluctant to introduce an effective fund to compensate employees, almost certainly, I suspect, because employers oppose such a proposal. Interestingly, employers have argued that they do not want a new bureaucratic structure as they see it, nor do they want to incur any additional costs.A number of options have been put forward for solving the problems. Firstly, I would emphasise that this issue needs a total solution, and I think the latest proposal from Minister Reith of some sort of safety net that would ensure part payment is totally unsatisfactory. Workers in these circumstances and their families are entitled to the full moneys owed. They are moneys that have been earned and they are entitled to full payment—part payment is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that employees in general should have to pay what is an employer obligation.Secondly, this requires national action. The solution should be national. The use of state laws and/or state based compensation funds would obviously not protect all Australian employees. It would be very difficult to legally enforce state based funds where they were introduced. For example, if a company went bankrupt and it had operations in two states, which is a common occurrence, and one state had a fund and the other did not, you would have the absurd situation where employees in one state would receive payment but those in the other would not. I also note in passing that businesses argue that this would be an impediment to investment. In reality, this would be a minimal barrier to investment, but it is argued nonetheless. So we do need national action, and this should take a number of forms.Firstly, we need to improve the regularity of payments to employees where possible. The major problem here is in the area of superannuation. Employers are legally obliged to make payment of the superannuation guarantee, known as the SG—currently seven per cent of base wages—up to 12 months after they fall due. Employers are increasingly using this provision to delay payments. Accordingly, there are significant moneys outstanding if the business fails.Interestingly, as a side consequence, an employee's death and disability insurance, which is part of the superannuation package, also expires after 60 days because of late payment of superannuation contributions. So it is important to improve the regularity of payments where possible so that drawings on any compensation fund are minimised. This also creates a more level playing field for the vast majority of responsible employers. So my suggestion in this area is that superannuation moneys should be paid at least quarterly in order to minimise the level of superannuation moneys that are outstanding, that are owed to the superannuation fund but have not been paid.The next area that requires improvement is the issue of legal supervision. Clearly, lifting employee payments on bankruptcy to first priority, as has been announced by Minister Hockey, should occur, but it has a number of drawbacks, as I outlined earlier. Also, legal sanctions against employers who enter contrived arrangements shifting assets to related but separate legal structures should also occur.But I would like now to turn to what I see as the total solution of this particular problem, and that involves the concept of a national employee entitlements guarantee. The twin goals should be to guarantee timely and full payment. A number of options have been proposed in the current public debate, including creation of a special trust fund and/or insurance on employers. I do note that employers have strongly opposed such proposals on the grounds of additional costs of both the structure and the levy. They argue: why should responsible employers pay? So is there another option? I believe there is, and I would like to advance this option in the debate.Currently, all employers are required to pay the superannuation guarantee into their employee's appropriate superannuation fund. The funds are governed by trustees, equal employer and employee, usually nominees of employer organisations and trade unions. These structures are tried, tested and trusted in terms of handling superannuation moneys. They also in the main provide compulsory death and disability insurance at a very competitive price. The sheer size of the funds enables the trustees to bargain with insurance companies in a very cost-efficient way, and the premium in this area usually amounts from 80c to $1 a week that is deducted from the employer SG contributions.I would suggest that we should be requiring a loss of entitlement insurance of superannuation trusts. The cost would be minuscule, likely to be between 20c and 40c a week, depending on the claims on the fund. When an employee loses their job, they can make an immediate claim on their superannuation fund for the moneys outstanding. Interestingly, the superannuation fund will also at the same time be pursuing superannuation payments from the employer for the employee. Usually these are not paid to the employee; they remain in the fund unless the employee is aged 55 or older and allowed to access them. So the superannuation fund is invariably involved in taking legal actions to collect outstanding superannuation moneys. Superannuation trusts with specialist lawyers are more likely to succeed legally as they have the greater resources to fund long-term legal actions than individuals do. I note in passing that indirectly this would assist government revenue as much of the recovered moneys is taxed.How would the cost of this compulsory insurance be met? There are a number of options. The superannuation guarantee could be increased. It would be a relatively minuscule amount of money—0.1 or 0.2 per cent—to cover the cost. This would raise between $150 million and $200 million a year, if indeed that sum is necessary. The second option is to debit the existing employer contribution, which effectively passes the cost on to the employee account. I believe that this proposal should rightly not be proceeded with because the employee should not be required to effectively cover their own loss of entitlements insurance.But there is a third area. Significantly, there is a rapidly growing amount of unclaimed and lost superannuation moneys. At last count, it was approaching the figure of $3 billion. Much of this money will never be claimed or collected. For example, when we have people visiting from overseas who are employed and they return overseas, most of those moneys will never be collected. So I would contend that some of the lost superannuation moneys could be used to fund such a compulsory insurance to be paid and administered by the superannuation fund. I do also note in passing that some state governments do hold lost superannuation moneys, and they should also contribute to such a funding option. Employers may even support such a proposal. It is no additional paperwork or cost, and it may improve their appreciation of the value of the superannuation system.I would say in closing that such a proposal could also be made retrospective for a certain time period to cover at least some of the outstanding cases that have been recently highlighted in the media. I would also note that, through its shadow industrial relations minister, Arch Bevis, and Janet Crosio, Labor has introduced a private member's bill in the House of Representatives. This legislation was introduced some 18 months ago. Regrettably, it has been delayed by the Liberal-National Party. This does also present another feasible and workable solution to what is an extremely difficult and distressing problem for workers who lose their money in these circumstances. It is an issue that should be dealt with. It should be dealt with quickly, effectively and fairly because workers and their families should not be disadvantaged in these particular circumstances.725713:11:007257Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I wish to raise a matter of public interest today and to perhaps update the Senate on a long saga that has been going on in Queensland. It has nothing to do with whistleblowers this time, but it is another issue that I have pursued over many years—that is, the whole issue of Hinchinbrook. I know Senator McLucas will be interested in this because of the interest that former Senator Reynolds had in the issue. I also do so to try to protect some people who have sought to fly the flag, if you can put it that way, for the environment in North Queensland and who have suffered a lot of personal abuse and personal attacks because of that. The most outstanding person, of course, is Margaret Thorsborne, who is well known and quite famous really for the work that both she and her husband have done over many years as environmentalists in that area through their own personal contributions and the other work that they have done.I wanted to place on the record the fact that, very sadly, the community of Cardwell is still divided over the issue of the development at Port Hinchinbrook. It is divided to such an extent that at least some of the people who are part of the Friends of Hinchinbrook group are still receiving threats, written and verbal. I visited Cardwell a week ago and again received some written material which does horrify me, but putting it on the record may give a certain amount of protection to those who are being threatened. I will not table the material because it does have some unparliamentary language contained within it, so I will perhaps make reference to the documents—at least in that way they will be given some public scrutiny.The person who was attacked—and I will use only her first name—was a woman named Sue who lives in Cardwell and who has continued to protest against the development there. That has caused a lot of anger in the town, although of course there are people on both sides of that debate. There are those who are in favour of the resort and there are those who are against it, and I would have thought that it was the right of everyone in a democratic society to be on either side of that debate. But I do object to the tactics which are sometimes used by one side or the other and, in this case, by those who apparently support the resort development against those who continue to protest. I will read some of the material. I read from a document which begins by stating:What a hypocritical lot of—word deleted—you lot are.The document goes on to say that people have protested but that they have been using the marina boat ramp facilities. That was built as a public facility anyway, so I do not know why they should not be allowed to use it. The document abuses them for doing that. It speaks of shame on those who are still protesting and says that those on the side of the development are the majority. I might add that no-one has established that. This per son—apparently a female—says she was a personal friend of Sue. Again there is more unparliamentary language, indicating that she is no longer a friend and asking them to leave town—which is the thrust of the document and where the threat is implied. Another document, obviously from the same person and in the same kind of language, made even more severe threats—one against the daughter of this person and one that these people could lose their house.I have put this on the record because we need to know how such issues sometimes develop. When you are part of it, you feel a responsibility for those who are being attacked, no matter which side they come from. One would wish that in some way or other we could handle these controversial issues better. The appeal that some of us would make is that, rather than resorting to such threats, we ought to be able to handle the issues in a far more responsible way and recognise that, whether we agree or disagree with other people, they have a right to their opinion. I will not table the documents. I wanted to quote from them to show that the woman Sue and other Friends of Hinchinbrook are not intimidated by such documents. But certainly it does leave one wondering, if that is the kind of support you need for a development, whether there is a question mark over it. The documents were signed `Jenny and friends'. There are still some problems in that development and within the town of Cardwell over the Hinchinbrook development.I refer to a couple of other issues surrounding the development and put it on the record that some of the debate which continues is also not very helpful. The Sunday Mail published a very glowing article on the developer on 11 July this year and then later, on 18 July, published a correction in which Mr Williams was quoted as saying that his development was not for sale and he had not at any time suggested that it might be. That statement contradicts many statements made by Mr Williams, and made publicly. I will quote from a few. There was an article in the Courier-Mail of 10 November 1994 headlined `Developer offers to sell resort', an article in the Townsville Bulletin of 30 June 1995 headlined `Williams wants to sell Port Hinchinbrook site', another article in the Cairns Post of 1 July 1995 headlined `Developer is ready to sell', and an article in the Courier-Mail of 1 March 1996 which reads:I gave them—that is, the federal government—the opportunity to buy it at cost plus interest. He's—that is, Mr Keating—been advised of that several times by me verbally and in writing . . . It is interesting to continue to follow this debate and the claims and counterclaims by both sides. I have been told that one of the casualties of war, which must include war between people over these kinds of developments, is truth. So I thought it was worth putting that correction about the claims on the record. But my main concern was to put on the record the threats which continue against those who protest at the development and in that way to bring to the attention of the Senate the conflict that continues. While one could hope that one day it will be over, it is certainly a lesson to people in this chamber—and I point the finger at myself—that in such protests one has to take responsibility for divisions which occur within the community and which seem very difficult to heal.725913:21:007259Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Last week I accompanied the Parliamentary Education Office on a tour through the Pilbara in Western Australia. The Parliamentary Education Office spent two weeks there. The first week was spent going through the western Pilbara where they visited the schools in Tom Price and Paraburdoo before going on to Karratha. They visited all the schools in the Karratha, Dampier, Wickham and Roebourne area before going to the eastern Pilbara last week. They visited Newman and provided their services in mock parliaments to all the schools in the Hedland area. I was very impressed with the way the Parliamentary Education Office worked in providing school children with an appreciation of how parliament works and how our Constitution operates.Today I would like to say a little about the Parliamentary Education Office and put on the record the fine work it does to promote knowledge of our parliamentary system and our Constitution among school children. The Parliamentary Education Office has a mock parliament in one of the committee rooms in Parliament House. In the past year the millionth student has passed through the mock parliament in Parliament House and that is a remarkable achievement.The Parliamentary Education Office was established, I understand, in 1988—just over 10 years ago—with the object of increasing the awareness, understanding and appreciation of the significance of the functions and procedures of our parliamentary system. It sought to provide an information service on parliament for senators and members who wished to pass on information to people who wrote to them about how our parliament worked and also to teachers and students as well as members of the public. It has also assisted in writing curriculum material and conducting professional development courses for teachers from all over Australia. In fact, teachers come to Canberra every year on so-called parliamentary fellowships to see how the system works and they take curriculum material back to their schools all over Australia. That material is now available on the Internet. It is available very easily around this country.I understand that during 1988 something in the order of 1,271 schools or 2,008 groups—which meant 66,921 students—participated in the program at Parliament House. Most of them came from areas close by. I understand that 54 per cent came from New South Wales, and there were high percentages from Victoria and southern Queensland, but only 3.15 per cent came from Western Australia, which is my particular area of interest. As a member of the Parliamentary Education Office advisory committee, earlier this year I expressed the view that I thought the outreach program, which the Parliamentary Education Office runs, should go to some of the more remote parts of Australia because it was highly unlikely that students in those areas would have an opportunity to come to Canberra. That was the genesis of the visit to the Pilbara last week. I believe that the PEO intends to visit the Kimberley area of Western Australia next year.The PEO does not take the outreach program just to areas which are very distant. It has taken the outreach program to areas of country Victoria, Queensland and South Australia because not all students can find the money to come to Canberra. If Mohammed cannot come to the mountain, it is a case of taking the mountain to Mohammed—or to the school children concerned. I was very impressed last week at the way the teachers brought students into the district education office in Port Hedland, which is where I was, and set up a parliament, appointing a prime minister, a speaker, a leader of the opposition and ministers. The children became totally absorbed in role-playing the respective jobs that they were given.In addition, last week the Parliamentary Education Office went to Hedland College where it provided a mock parliament to the English as a second language class at the college. The nationalities represented in that class included Malay women, Thai women, Venezuelan women and Vietnamese women. As it happened, they were all women. Given the restrictions on their understanding of English, the Parliamentary Education Office managed to get these people to participate in a mock parliament and to do so enthusiastically. They all left with a good appreciation of how our parliamentary system works.The other unique and important thing that the PEO did last week during its visit to the Pilbara was to visit an Aboriginal community. It went to the Yandeyarra community, which is about 120 miles out of Port Hedland. That was the first time the Parliamentary Education Office had been to a school at an Aboriginal community anywhere in Australia. Yandeyarra is a very successful community. It is a model almost of what an Aboriginal community could be, with a very nice village, a good school and a medical centre which is well set up. They have a station of about one million acres in the old coinage. As was said by one of the officers from the Parliamentary Education Office, it was like having a vast parkland for these people to live in and enjoy. They also run a very successful cattle station and mining operation.Again, I was very impressed by the way Geoff Clarke and his staff—Camilla Blunden and Ali Garnet—simply walked into this Aboriginal community and talked to the kids about something which interested them, and that was the idea that people were stealing snakes, birds and other animals from their country and what should they do about it. They all decided that it was wrong and there should be a law to prevent people stealing their snakes and birds. So a bill was set up to be passed in the mock parliament. These little Aboriginal children very enthusiastically joined in the role-playing.I commend the Parliamentary Education Office for devising a concept which these Aboriginal children could relate to. In the other schools they had a proposal, for example, that school hours be extended, which of course most children opposed. This would not have worked so well at Yandeyarra because they do not have regular school hours: people seem to come and go as they choose. But the idea of a law where animals should not be stolen appealed very much to these Aboriginal children. I would certainly like to thank the people at the Yandeyarra school: the principal, Mark Rawlins; the teachers—Lisa Carthy and Tina McVicar—who helped set up that mock parliament; as well as the Aboriginal educational assistants, Marlene Walker and Jenny Walker, who were very helpful.One of the objectives of the Parliamentary Education Office is to improve young Australians' understanding of our Constitution and our system of government. They are doing this through the program, Discovering Democracy. The Discovering Democracy program was established because a Constitutional Commission report in 1988 found that only 50 per cent of our population understood that we had a written constitution. A 1994 study found that 73 per cent, no less, of people over the age of 15 had a total lack of knowledge of the role of the Governor-General in our Constitution. The Parliamentary Education Office is part of the program to ensure that Australians have a better under standing of our Constitution and our form of government.One of the findings of the Turnbull committee, which looked into the question of the republic about five or six years ago, was that most Australians assumed that our Constitution was similar to the American Constitution, and were stunned to find that we did not have things like a bill of rights and so on. The need to educate Australians about our political system, our Constitution and our form of government is one of the great unmet needs in this society of ours. We should be paying more attention to educating children about our political system at a school level to overcome this huge deficiency in knowledge about how our political system works.It is interesting that in other countries, like the United States, children have a very good understanding of how their political system works. They have a very good understanding of the history of the American Revolution, and they also have a very highly developed sense of national pride—the American flag is everywhere one goes in the United States—and that is an example that we could well emulate in Australia.As I said, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the fine work that the Parliamentary Education Office is doing to promote knowledge of our political system and the workings of our parliament. I would like to once again congratulate Geoff Clark and his team for the particularly good work that they are doing with their outreach program and for taking that program to many parts of Australia when students are not able to come to Canberra to participate.726113:33:007261Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Tibet is a nation of six million people on the roof of the world in Central Asia, but it is not a free nation. It is the largest occupied nation, and the largest colony on the face of the planet at this end of the 20th century. I made a private visit to Tibet over the winter break, and I want to make some preliminary comments about that visit and forthcoming events to do with Tibet. I can inform you that I will be submitting a full report on that trip to the Senate in the next few weeks.The media background information, which is available to members of the Australia Tibet Council, reports that next week the third annual round of the Australia-China bilateral human rights dialogue takes place in Beijing. These private talks between bureaucrats will take place only three weeks before President Jiang Zemin of China visits Australia. China has already indicated that President Jiang is likely to announce a $15 million natural gas deal with Australia during the visit, partly because of the support that Australia has given to China in its recent confrontation with Taiwan. This is only one of several bilateral trade deals under negotiation in the lead-up to President Jiang's arrival. In this climate, the third round of the dialogue in Beijing seems certain to be at least as ineffectual as the previous meetings when it comes to confronting the serious human rights abuses taking place in Tibet and, indeed, throughout China.The Australia Tibet Council's position is that the dialogue should be suspended pending a parliamentary review into its effectiveness. I cannot but wholeheartedly agree. The position of government in Australia regarding the military repression in Tibet is totally out of keeping with the feelings, as I have gauged them, of the people of Australia. We need to redress that. A starting point for that is increased debate in this national parliament—something that I intend to foster.When I went to Tibet with other people at the start of August, we first went to the western city of Xining and from there bussed to Dulan, a town on the main road from Beijing to Lhasa. In doing so, we went onto the northern part of the central Tibetan plateau. This is where the World Bank intends to invest some $US40 million, backing a Chinese scheme for the resettlement of 58,000 Chinese people from the Xining area, 400 kilometres to the east, onto the plateau. This will be done by the diversion of a river, the establishment of 126 villages and the creation of a massive network of irrigation canals, which directly obstructs the passage of the nomadic Mongol and Tibetan herdspeople bringing their herds down off the mountains for winter onto the plains and back again in summer.There are a number of delegations: a media delegation last week, and the Australia China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue delegation is being hosted to the area by the Chinese government. I think all these visits are going to fail on two counts. Firstly, none of the delegations will be taken to the wetlands—an important breeding site for the black-neck crane, which is emblematic of China and Tibet—because they are 200 kilometres out in the desert. The wetlands are going to be deprived of water by this scheme. I doubt any of the delegations are going to see the herdspeople whose lives are going to be dramatically changed by this influx of 58,000 people from elsewhere, because they are with their flocks up in the mountains at the moment. In two- or three-day visits it is simply not possible to contact those people.There will be a lot of debate about this issue in the coming months. At least the World Bank has put its commitment on hold until there is a further study. The World Bank ought to require a minimum one-year environmental impact study and cultural and economic impact studies of that massive area to be affected on the northern Tibetan plateau before it goes ahead with that project. As well, the World Bank ought to be insisting that 58,000 poor Tibetans are put into that region—not add to the immigration problem by which China is quite deliberately moving millions of Chinese citizens into the Tibetan plateau so that the Tibetan people will be, if they are not already, a minority in their own land.I went to Lhasa and was immediately impressed by the militarisation of that place. I cannot understand how other parliamentarians visiting the area could have come to a different conclusion. On landing at the airport in Lhasa, I saw nine fighter jets at one end of the airport, a military camp at the back and soldiers with guns placed on all four perimeters of the airport. On the way to and from the airport in Lhasa, there were passing convoys of military vehicles—some of them full of troops.The first thing you note on the way into Lhasa is the destroyed buildings on a hillside. When you ask what happened there, you are told that that was part of the massive destruction of Tibetan culture which took place under Mao Tse Tung's government, the Cultural Revolution and the immediate predecessors of the current government—many of whom were in Beijing fostering this destruction of the Tibetan people's culture back in the sixties and seventies. In Lhasa itself there are military vehicles, but these are not gun carrying and rocket carrying vehicles, which people might look for; they are military vehicles—trucks and four-wheel drives—carrying military personnel. There are military personnel and police on the street like I have seen nowhere else in China, let alone in the free countries of the world.It is very easy for MPs, as well as other people, to visit a place like Tibet and, not seeing people being knocked down in the streets or hearing gunshots, to think everything is toward. You have to have contact with the Tibetan people to realise the repression that is going on there. It is only safe to do that out of the vigilant watch of the military personnel and the predominantly Chinese population in the business centre of Tibet. Most of the businesses these days are owned by the Chinese. The ownership predominance has transferred from the Tibetan people to the Chinese immigrants, who have become the extension, the watching eyes, of the government.One thing that impressed me enormously was the readiness of young Tibetans—they are the ones who tend to speak some English and, given the opportunity and reassurance that they are speaking to a friend of Tibet, will come up and start conversing with a Westerner—to express their utter wish that the Dalai Lama return to Tibet and that Tibet be given its freedom. I think that visitors who do not expose themselves to or do not find themselves in that situation have missed a connection with the Tibetan people. It is okay to be taken around by Chinese guides, to stay in Chinese hotels, to be given the Chinese tour patter, but this is very little different, in my book, from parliamentary delegations who went to the USSR in the thirties, forties or the fifties and came back reporting that all was going well, that there was advancement of the people, that the economy was getting better, that production was better and that education standards were better—that all these parameters were better—while not daring to push the authorities and look behind the brutality of that regime in those times. We now all know better.I do not believe we can shut our eyes to what is happening in Tibet. When you put your head down at night in the comfortable modern hotels—Chinese-owned hotels—in Tibet, you know that in the prisons a few blocks up the road there are monks and nuns by their hundreds who have dared to stand up for their beliefs, who are not just in prison but who are in lengthy months of solitary confinement—very often in fouled cells—and who are subject to torture, including electrified cattle prods and, unfortunately, on occasions, rape. There are harrowing accounts of extended periods of torture. I believe that no MP worth their salt should ever leave this country again and go to Tibet without speaking first to ex-prisoners from those gaols who are now part of the exiled Tibetan community here in Australia. I believe it is a failure to properly understand the plight of the Tibetans for MPs, business people and visitors at large who want to understand what is going on in Tibet to not do the study at home first.The Australia Tibet Council has now issued a list of recommended procedures for people going to Tibet which I thoroughly endorse as a minimum for anybody who does not want to be foxed by the propaganda and the tightly controlled guiding system that the Chinese government invokes in this occupied country to our north.Of course China wants to keep control of Tibet. It is to them `a treasure trove of forests, mineral resources and hydro-electric potential', and of course they keep vilifying the Dalai Lama and misrepresenting the position of the Tibetan government in exile. Do we have to accept that as a parameter in our negotiations with the Chinese government? The Chinese government, remember, denies all other political parties the right to exist in China, let alone the Tibetan people their right to freedom of expression, or at least a minimal right to vote for self-determination as espoused by the International Commission of Jurists.Next week, this next round of bilateral dialogue will take place with Australians, including Mr Peter Nugent from the House of Representatives, going to Beijing. I believe these dialogue talks should be, at minimum, suspended and, better still, abandoned, because they are a charade which allows the Chinese and Australian governments to put the issue of Tibet on the shelf. We go to those talks under terms dictated by China but foreign to our open, free and democratic system. Why should these talks be held in secret? Why should there be no definitive reporting? Why is it the government has such a minimal cost allocation and such a minimal delegation system for these talks? Why are non-government organisations or, indeed, representatives of groups like the Tibetan people not taken into account, let alone taken along on these visits?I am mindful that President Jiang Zemin himself will be in this country at the start of next month. I understand there will be a parliamentarians dinner on 8 September to honour him.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I hope you behave yourself at that.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Boswell's interjection is a reference to me calling President Clinton's attention to the issue of Tibet when he was here two years ago. I am forever glad I did. If behaviour means our having a steely resignation to the repression of the Tibetan people, going silent and acquiescing, acceding to the dictates of the Chinese authorities—remember these are not elected Chinese authorities; this is, in effect, a dictatorship—then I am not going to have a part of that. Of course I will behave, but I will be impelled in any circumstance where I have the opportunity to speak with Chinese officialdom—and they turned down that opportunity when I was in Beijing as if they were frightened to talk about this issue—of putting to them the plight of the Tibetan people.I have a very strong feeling that is what most Australians would want all parliamentarians to be doing. I will be referring this matter through a full report to the parliament in the next few weeks. I urge the government to rethink about being a part of this charade next week in Beijing.726413:48:007264Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—This is the sixth in a series of addresses that I have given in this chamber on the matter of illicit drug taking and the ongoing drug crisis in Australia. I am very proud to remind honourable senators that the Howard government is the first Commonwealth government to have taken a national or whole of government approach to Australia's drug problem. Until the launch of the Tough on Drugs national strategy on 18 March this year and our resolute commitment of $290 million in grants under the Tough on Drugs program, Australia previously had a hotchpotch approach to this problem.What I am not proud of, and what I want to underscore today, is that, no matter how much money we spend on the problem of drugs within our community, unless we have a major and decisive shift in the attitude about illicit drug use in our community, all our efforts are going to be constantly put at risk and with potential lethal ramifications that most people simply are not aware of.Let me explain what I am getting at. I will start by quoting something that Bob Carr, the Labor Premier of New South Wales, said in the opening of the Drug Summit on 17 May 1999. The Premier said:Drug use is part of our society, part of our culture, part of the Australian way of life.This is a statement that should have everyone really worried. It should set off alarm bells everywhere. I really do not think that the Premier would accept that drugs are now so inexorably and irredeemably part of Australian way of life that all we can do effectively is just fiddle at the margins. That would be a nonsense if it were the case.But that is exactly what is likely to happen if people continue to make fine speeches and write long academic texts that differentiate between hard drugs and soft drugs and when they distinguish between the use of pharmaceutical drugs and what they term recreational drugs. Think about the implications of such terminology for the type of attitude that we are fostering in our community, particularly amongst our young people.What is a soft drug anyway? What does it mean to say that a drug is soft and what is a recreational drug? My Oxford English Dictionary tells me that, if something is soft, it is `gentle, smooth and calm, and produces an agreeable or pleasant sensation characterised by ease and quiet enjoyment. It involves little or no exertion or effort'. My dictionary also tells me that a recreation is `an agreeable pastime, amusement or occupation which refreshes and enlivens the human spirit and body'.What sort of attitude are we fostering in our young people when we say that marijuana, hashish and other such types of drugs, which have such insidiously powerful effects, are gentle and smooth, and freshen and enliven the human body, mind and spirit? Although we may be able to understand how a layman like the Labor Premier in New South Wales could inadvisably refer to drug taking as part of our Australian way of life, I do not think we should show the same restraint when someone like Professor David Penington, a former Vice Chancellor and Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, agitates for the decriminalisation of marijuana use because it is a soft or recreational drug.I listened to what he had to say when I attended the New South Wales drug summit in May this year, and I really could not believe my ears. Here was a leading scientist and medical practitioner who seemed to be ignoring the growing evidence of the insidious effects of marijuana because it did not suit his personal point of view. By taking this stand, he does policy makers, the community and individuals who might be tempted by so-called soft drugs a great disservice. Like so many others who trivialise the enormous risk taken by people when they get onto the slippery slope of drug taking, Professor Penington seems to choose to ignore the reality that marijuana can cause a vast array of medical as well as psychiatric problems, including, in some cases, death. Most people do not usually associate marijuana usage with death, but Dr John Anderson, a consultant psychophysiologist with the Brain and Behaviour Centre in Westmead, set out just such a terminal scenario in a major policy conference last weekend.I will reconstruct Dr Anderson's argument and will do so point by point, because it deserves our very serious consideration. Point 1: the level of THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana, has been steadily increasing over the last few years, due partly to ongoing developments in hydroponics and the use of hormones to induce growth in plants. The level of THC in marijuana has gone from being just four per cent in the 1970s to 10 per cent, then 15 per cent and up to 30 per cent in the 1980s. Even without all the fancy equipment and growth hormones, we now have in our midst a type of marijuana called `New Guinea gold' from the highlands of Papua New Guinea which has an amazing THC level of 42 per cent.Point 2: the higher the level of THC present in marijuana, the more profound the effect on the brain of the user. It does not just make the drug user of the 1990s a lot higher than the Woodstock hippie of the late 1960s and early 1970s; it actually retards his or her brain function. It is not just that it slows down the brain's actual growth, which continues in human beings up to the age of 27, but it does this in an exponentially more thorough way than it has ever done before.Point 3: the solubility of marijuana, which is referred to in medical literature as its lipophyllic nature, has two extremely dangerous characteristics, which function to prevent rapid metabolism and excretion from the body. As a result, THC stays in the human system for about 30 days through cumulative use, and can now be stored for longer and longer durations.Point 4: in conjunction with other well-documented effects of marijuana, like a reduced flow of oxygen to the brain, what happens after a period of constantly storing so much THC in the body is that people invariably start to exhibit classic symptoms of depression, schizophrenia and other drug related psychoses. They invariably go to their local GP who, more often than not, puts them onto an antidepressant type of drug.Point 5: we now come more directly to the scenario which was outlined for me by Dr Anderson and for which there is growing medical and scientific correlating evidence. Parents who find their children dead might think they had been a bit depressed for a time and might have encouraged them to go to the family doctor. Their children would have seemed happy enough once on prescribed antidepressants, but young people often do not tell the doctor that they are smoking marijuana. It is the interaction of marijuana and antidepressant drugs like prozac which can cause a deadly effect in some young people. What can result from that situation is accidental and inadvertent death.It will be shown up that the person died of an overdose of antidepressants, and the parents would anguish about this because they would be wondering where they went wrong. Why did their child join the growing suicide statistics? But there is increasing evidence that a lot of these deaths could be caused by the interaction of these two substances and, if the level of THC in marijuana had not gone from four per cent up to as high as 42 per cent through today's usage, this sort of death might be avoided.Let me say here that it is unlikely that many parents and doctors would have come to this realisation, as Dr Anderson explains:Most doctors are not aware of the interaction of prescribed medications and illicit drugs. Currently there is no reference source for them to use.Medical evidence of this correlation is now only just starting to come to light. Only last year, in 1998, there was a report in the Australian Journal of Psychiatry of someone who died because of that patient being on a lethal combination of antidepressants and marijuana. Dr Anderson has told me of similar reports from overseas.Point 6: my final point is the appalling connection between marijuana—which people claim to be a so-called soft or recreational drug that the Oxford English Dictionary tells us is gentle, smooth and refreshing to the system—the classic medical symptoms which are usually alleviated by antidepressant types of medication and the tragically bizarre phenomenon of an increasing number of Australians, mostly young people, apparently committing suicide by taking an overdose of their medication.There is nothing approaching the concept of recreation or fun in anything I have told you today—quite the opposite. There is nothing soft about the statistics on marijuana. The hard fact, as stated in the documentation that Dr Anderson has sent me, is that:Australia has the dubious honour of the world's highest suicide rate aged 14 to 55 per capita and also the same dubious honour of being the largest consumers of cannabis in the world.While I conclude my contribution to this debate on a very depressing note, we must face the darkness of this issue before we can walk towards the light. We have to do this so that we can rescue those who are most vulnerable in our community, and we need to do this before they settle into the increasingly deadly option of so-called soft and recreational drugs like marijuana.Distinguished Visitors726610000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from Ethiopia led by the Speaker of the House of Federation of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Hon. Woi-Zero Almaz. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the Senate and trust that your visit will be both informative and enjoyable. With the concurrence of honourable senators I propose to invite the Speaker to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!The Hon. Woi-Zero Almaz was thereupon seated accordingly. Questions Without Notice726672667266Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. In view of the APEC meeting in September and the upcoming World Trade Organisation meeting in November-December, will the new protectionist Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, be offering to brief other APEC and WTO member nations on the virtues of slowing down the pace of tariff reform, as he believes Australia should do? Does the government believe that Minister Vaile will get international support for this view? How many of Australia's export industries are in support of Mr Vaile's preferred policy position?7266Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think that Senator Cook might have misunderstood Mr Vaile's position in this matter. Mr Vaile obviously reflects the government's position—and that is that ongoing trade liberalisation is in Australia's interest. We are burdened by trade barriers in our markets, and the more they can be reduced, the better off Australia is going to be. I even recall that being a position advocated by Senator Cook when he was the minister in this area, so he will be pleased to hear my answer in that regard. At the forthcoming trade discussions Australia will be taking the position that further liberalisation should be encouraged and supported, and we will be endeavouring to persuade others to that position.7266Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that assurance. It is different from what Mr Vaile told Laurie Oakes in his Sunday interview. In view of that answer, is it still the government's policy to pursue the goal of `aggressive bilateralism' at the expense of multilateralism as outlined in the coalition's 1998 election policy? Does the government believe that aggressive bilateralism is preferable to trade multilateralism, and will this be Australia's position as it enters the APEC and WTO trade round discussions? How is aggressive bilateralism of more advantage to Australia's exporters than the opening of many markets under a multilateral approach?7266Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Regrettably, again I fear that Senator Cook has misread or misunderstood the government policy. Government policy is to take all opportunities to reduce trade barriers and open markets—whether it can be achieved on a bilateral basis or on a multilateral basis. What the coalition did say was that the previous government, of which Senator Cook was a member, erred in putting too much emphasis upon multilateralism at the expense of taking full opportunity under bilateral occasions as they present. In its bilaterals this government has vigorously sought—and I think Senator Cook need only refer to the record of Mr Fischer in this regard—to open markets at each and every opportunity as it has presented. Through the WTO and other venues, it has similarly sought to persuade a broadscale opening of markets. So it just requires a correct interpretation of the policy. (Time expired)72677267Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the minister inform the Senate about the price reductions which have occurred in the implementation of the new tax system? Will he also inform the Senate of reactions to the reduction of wholesale sales tax on 29 July?7267Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Gibson, for that question. Senator, you have had a long role in the history of tax reform. In fact, you headed up a consultative committee, as you will be aware, that assisted in the development of this very successful tax package, which we went to the election on, which we were elected on and which we passed in this chamber after a very long debate.Some of the benefits of the new tax system are already flowing through to Australian consumers. Firstly, may I remind the Senate of the abolition of Labor's complex wholesale sales tax, which was originally formulated in the 1930s and of which Senator Sherry and the Labor Party remain among the few supporters. The abolition of the wholesale sales tax will complement the massive income tax cuts that the government is delivering to taxpayers. Of course, many families will receive tax cuts of up to $40 to $50 a week when the system becomes fully operative. These tax cuts will mean that 80 per cent of Australian taxpayers will have a marginal rate of 30c in the dollar or less. And it is to be remembered that many goods will not rise in price but many will fall.Senators will be aware that during the debate there was the attempt to constantly portray that there would be massive price rises. That was quite untrue. As Senator Gibson reminded us, on 29 July, 21 days after royal assent was given to the new tax system bills, the first tax cuts began and most goods that were previously taxed at 32 per cent wholesale sales tax fell to being taxed at 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. As we know, those goods will fall to 10 per cent GST next year. These goods include clocks, TVs, cameras, watches, radios, stereo players, et cetera. These tax cuts represent the first stages of the change to the tax system in this country—changes and tax cuts that the Labor Party opposed.Let me inform the Senate of some of the comments from retailers regarding the wholesale sales tax reductions on 29 July. I have before me the Queensland Times from Ipswich. The headline is `Town races to grab tax bargain'. The article says:Ipswich BT Edwards store manager, Mr Brian McNamara, said $200 came off items such as TVs, stereos, videos, hi-fis and walkmans.He went on to say:I think it's a tremendous thing. It's great for the general public in terms of prices being more reasonable. It will boost business.And it is not just on the east coast. Retravision's chairman said:The floodgates are well and truly opened, and we aren't complaining. We've already done 50 per cent more than what we would normally do on a good Thursday.That is what the Retravision manager said in relation to the tax cuts we were able to deliver in wholesale sales tax. The headline in the Adelaide Advertiser of 29 July sums up the mood for retailers and indeed for consumers—`Day one for GST shopping bargains'. If there is a supplementary question, I might continue. (Time expired)7267Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister have any other comments to make about the reduction in wholesale sales tax to inform the Senate of?7267Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator. Indeed I do. Let me inform the Senate of how the first stage of the government's tax reform has affected some of the prices of various goods. I am advised that a medium range TV set would go down by up to $42, a video player down by some $24, a higher end stereo down by up to $126 and a higher end camera down by up to $70. It is worth noting that Labor opposed these tax cuts every inch of the way. In their debate Labor opposed these cuts. If we had left Labor's tax system in place, these major cuts in these goods would not have occurred. That is one of the reasons why the new tax reform system brought in by this government will be welcomed by the Australian people.72687268Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Does the minister endorse the comments of the trade minister, Mr Vaile, who has stated that Australia was entitled to a pause on the further removal of trade barriers? How is this consistent with his own decision to commence the process of removing the remaining industrial tariffs in the automotive and TCF industries? Is it government policy, as stated by the Minister for Trade, to wait for other countries to catch up before continuing with the removal of tariff barriers?7268Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The feeble opposition is trying desperately to find some small chink of light that they might pursue in relation to government policy on tariffs. The government has a very consistent policy on this, one not indistinct from the previous government's. We applaud the fact that one of the very few things the previous government did honourably and sensibly was to embark on a program of significant tariff reductions, and we are continuing with that program.I was pleased to announce at the end of the last session that we have instigated a complete review of our general tariffs. That is because we do believe in trade liberalisation, just as the previous government did. Every member of this government supports the cause of trade liberalisation and supports the review of general tariffs which I have announced. That is not an announcement that the general tariffs are to be removed; it is a statement consistent with our APEC obligations to review our general tariffs. In particular, we are focusing on nuisance tariffs, those tariffs which do not protect any Australian industry and which are the least defensible of tariffs and ones that I personally hope we are in a position to remove as soon as we possibly can.We specifically said in that statement that we have put in place special arrangements for the automobile industry and the TCF industries. The tariff position with them is clear and known. I also made clear in that statement I made that in any review of general tariffs by this government we will be very closely watching the performance of our trading partners with respect to their own tariff position.7268Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I welcome that answer but, in view of that answer and the announcement made on the Sunday program in a Laurie Oakes interview by the then trade minister elect, Mr Mark Vaile, that he believes that Australia should pause their tariffs until other nations catch up, who is speaking for the government, Minister—you or Mr Vaile? Who is telling the truth—you or Mr Vaile?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should direct your question through the Chair.7268Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Madam President, you will understand that of course the government was extremely upset with the decision by the United States government about lamb. The interview given by Mr Vaile was of course in that context. It is not government policy to pause our tariff reductions. However, consistent with Mr Vaile's sentiments, it is government policy that in reviewing our tariffs we take full account and cognisance of the performance of our trading partners with respect to their own barriers to trade, including tariffs.72687268McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Will the minister inform the Senate of details of progress with the coalition's initiative to provide rural transaction centres in rural Australia?7269Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator McGauran has an interest in these matters, representing rural and regional Australia as he does. I am very pleased to be able to advise Senator McGauran and other senators who are interested, which obviously does not include many on the Labor side because very few of them know what it is like outside the capital cities, that on 20 July—Opposition senators interjecting—10000The PRESIDENT—There are too many senators shouting on my left.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—On 20 July the government was able to announce that the first of its rural transaction centre allocations had been made. Seven communities were funded for the establishment of the first of these rural transaction centres. They included: Cabonne Council in Eugowra, Gresford Community Group, Urana Shire Council, Aramac Shire Council, Dirranbandi Progress Association, St Marys Association for Community Development in Tasmania and the Welshpool and District Advisory Group in Victoria.Those seven communities are the first cabs off the rank, so to speak. They will get federal government money to set up these rural transaction centres which will, for the first time in many years, provide these small communities with basic banking access, postal, telecommunications, Medicare Ezyclaim, fax and phone facilities and video conferencing.In addition to the seven who were funded outright, another 15 communities were given money to provide business plans so that they can make applications to provide rural transaction centres. The groups successful in those business plan applications cover many areas in Australia from the Jabiru Town Council right through to the Greenvale Progress Association near Townsville—which is where I come from—a group in Nanango, the Furneaux Enterprise Group on Flinders Island, Murrindindi Shire Council and the Bremer Bay Community Resource Centre, just to name a few.We expect that the first of the rural transaction centres will be open within the next couple of months. We are very keen to get from local communities their ideas of what they want. That is what the whole scheme is about. They tell us the services they need, they propose the solutions and we then fund them for the capital costs and for the first period of their operation. This program was funded from the social bonus from the sale of the next 16 per cent of Telstra.I had an uplifting experience during the so-called break. I visited a number of communities in remote, rural and regional Australia. I drove from my home in Ayr some 3,000 kilometres down through western Queensland, calling in on small country towns and understanding their problems. I was delighted to be able to go into the town of Aramac, which had received funding for a rural transaction centre. The joy in that community was tremendous to experience.Since the Labor Party got rid of all the banks in rural and regional Australia and since services left regional Australia during the Keating and Hawke Labor governments, they have been without these facilities. To experience that pleasure and joy was very uplifting. In Aramac the funding is going into a licensed post office. The postal licensee was able to show me exactly where the money is going and demonstrate the services that will be provided.I was pleased to be able to get out into regional Australia. I understand the shadow minister, Ms Kernot, was also visiting regional Australia. She flew into Rockhampton—a major provincial city—with her leader, Mr Beazley, and flew out again. That was her visit to rural and regional Australia.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—That is not right.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I urge her and Senator Mackay to get out to these smaller communities and then they will understand the benefits of the government's initiatives in providing services for rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)72707270Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage and Minister representing the Prime Minister. How can the minister claim that the process for determining grants under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program was thorough, fair and consistent with the requirements of the Auditor-General when we now know that the minister and Senator Alston completely ignored this process in relation to 16 of the 60 successful projects? Why did ministers ignore departmental assessments in relation to these projects? Why has the government consistently resisted opposition attempts to get details of these 16 projects? What is the government trying to hide?7270Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am surprised to receive this question because the issue had been debated at length in the estimate committee hearings. As Senator Faulkner is well aware, the process was that guidelines were published and were followed by ministers. In this instance, two ministers were to make the decision. As I recall, some 700-odd applications looking for funding of about $1 billion were received. Seventy million dollars was made available in this program.In addition to the published guidelines, ministers received advice from both officials and the Centenary of Federation Council. The advice of both bodies was taken into account in making the decisions. Ministers made their decisions and endorsed some 60 projects. The reasons for the decisions were given as well. The structure was set up pursuant to the previous advice that had been given by the Auditor-General. We believe that in form and in implementation it properly met the Auditor-General's requirements.7270Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister seems so satisfied with the processes used to design this ultimate in pork-barrelling exercises, will he undertake to provide details of the 16 shonky projects? Would the minister have any objection to the Auditor-General being invited to conduct an audit of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program?7270Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I would expect that the Auditor-General will do so. That is the task of the Auditor-General. That is no surprise.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why? Are you expecting an audit of that program, are you?BH4Senator HILL—Well, the Auditor-General chooses what he thinks is desirable.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I asked you whether you invited him.BH4Senator HILL—No, you did not ask me whether I had invited him; you asked me whether I had any objection and I said that I would expect the Auditor-General to do his task. But there are a couple of falsehoods. This is the old Senator Faulkner technique: we recall it with the Baillieus—defame a dead person and then refuse to apologise to the relatives. The point is that 60 projects were approved. They are all good quality projects. They are all public. The 60 projects are public.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Why don't you identify them?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much shouting.BH4Senator HILL—No-one has suggested that there is one inappropriate project.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Name them.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, it is your supplementary question.BH4Senator HILL—They are on the public record. All projects were eligible for choice by the ministers. (Time expired)72707270Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to Minister Fahey's appointment of a probity adviser to inquire into the operations of CS First Boston following cancellation of their operating licence in Japan. I remind the minister that CS First Boston are the lead managers of the Telstra 2 share float. Will that inquiry also look into the role of CS First Boston in the first Telstra float, particularly the scandalous undervaluation of Telstra shares which cost taxpayers $5 billion in unrealised proceeds? Will it ask why CS First Boston advised the government to price shares at $3.30 when major stockbroking houses like JB Were and HSBC James Capel were advising their clients that Telstra shares were worth $4?7271Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Here we go again. This is the crowd that do not even believe in privatisations, let alone want to take account of the way in which the real world marketplace operates.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Don't upset her. You are not supposed to abuse them any more. They are on your side now. You have broken the rules now.LD4Senator ALSTON—It is all right. I told you we would not declare your low impact as silly, but I could reconsider.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, that is a most inappropriate interjection and I ask you to abide by the standing orders.LD4Senator ALSTON—Quite right. Senator Allison does not even pretend to understand how the marketplace operates, let alone understand that there is always a great element of uncertainty in terms of the forward movement of share prices which are obviously significantly affected by other factors quite often beyond the control of individual companies, let alone local markets. In other words, international factors, particularly in the US, can have a very significant impact upon the ultimate share price and its trajectory. To suggest that somehow because the share price of Telstra rose as investors recognised that it had great long-term potential represents some sort of scandalous undervaluation is a preposterous proposition that can only ever be trotted out in hindsight.In other words, if the share price had gone down, we would not for a moment have Senator Allison saying, `How could they possibly have come up with that figure?' Senator Allison must be aware of the numbers that were put on the total market cap of Telstra by the other side. Over a period of three or four years it ranged from $15 billion to $20 billion. When we said $20 billion we were laughed out of town. We are now up in the stratosphere compared to those earlier predictions. Those numbers are ones that were put forward in good faith by those responsible. We have no reason at all to regard the assessments made at the time as deserving of any probity inquiry.The fact is that the concerns that Mr Fahey has addressed were ones that involved him approaching Mr Andrew Rogers before the Japanese Financial Supervisory Agency handed down its sanctions against CS First Boston on 2 August, and the chief executive of investment banking at CSFB Australia, Mr John Wylie, has made it plain on the public record that the issues examined by Japan's Financial Supervisory Agency had no impact on the Australian operations of the company, were not related to share trading and equity capital and there is no suggestion that these issues, which are peculiar to the Japanese financial market, apply anywhere outside of Japan. So in other words, it is perfectly proper for Mr Fahey, out of an abundance of caution, to have a look at what it was that led to that action being taken by the Japanese authorities. But that in no way of itself reflects upon the process that was followed in the course of T1. The government has no reason at all to go down the path that you are suggesting.7271Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. However, he talks about the benefit of hindsight but this government had foresight. It had the advice of major stockbroking firms—it had the advice of the Australian Democrats—that these shares were worth more than $4 each. Again, I ask: how is it that the float advisers got this so terribly wrong? How is it that within weeks those Telstra shares were worth $4 and how is it that CS First Boston was again contracted to help run the second float? Will they now be removed and what action will the government take to recover the $5 billion lost on the first Telstra float because of poor advice?7271Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I suppose this gets a good run in the Democrat newsletters because it plays to the prejudices of those who have not a clue about how privatisations operate in the real world. I seem to recall that about two weeks before Telstra 1 actually went to market there were some significant events that caused certain people to say that we should postpone the float, that we should not really go ahead at all. Were those people fundamentally wrong? You weren't one of them, I take it. You sat on your hands just hoping that the share price would dive, I suppose, so you were very keen for us to go ahead into those stormy waters. Of course what happened was that people recognised the underlying strength of the share and the management behind the company. That is a judgment that people will continue to have to exercise. I do not pass any judgment on its current valuation or its prospects for the future. I simply say that you appoint experts to give you that advice and we did just that. (Time expired)72727272Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister shed any light on the 16 shonky federation cultural and heritage projects which he and his colleague Senator Hill selected for funding, notwithstanding departmental assessments that they did not make the grade? I ask Minister Alston: what were the 16 projects? Why were they chosen? Who recommended them? And why is the government refusing to provide any information about them?7272Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—You really know you have run out of steam when you have to recycle this little issue that Senator Faulkner has been desperately trying to get up now for months and months. How long is it since the last election? It must be coming up to 10 months, and yet here we are still trying to get it off the ground. This issue was trawled over exhaustively in the estimates process. Of course, Senator Faulkner got a letter some weeks ago. He had to wait until Mike Seccombe got back from holidays before he could find someone who would actually give it a run.To really capitalise on this issue and make sure he really hit the spot, what did he do? Did he get out there, call a doorstop and talk to all of the major media players? No, he went on Graham Richardson's program this morning. Were they feeding one another! Mr Richardson said, `These two senators ignored independent advice, and they gave funding to what they now admit were 16 projects, even though the projects did not meet the minimum criteria.' Talk about a strict exchange of prejudices!Richardson knows, as do you, that we were the recipients of two sets of advice from the National Council for the Centenary of Federation and a task force comprising joint officials from Senator Hill's department and mine. We made the ultimate decision about that. We took their advice, they gave us a list, we took that into account and we looked at all the projects. Of course, that does not stop you getting out there and saying, `I think they are probably dodgy projects.' I noticed you said so for the first time. I suppose you think you have to go a bit further to try to beat it up. Now, of course, he does not think; he knows. He comes into question time today and says, `These are shonky projects.' Let me just ask you: the 16 must be included amongst the 60 that we approved. Is that right? The logic of that is that, somewhere in amongst those 60 projects, all of which are on the public record, you are saying that at least 16 of them are shonky. Does that include the restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in Sydney? Does it include the restoration of one of the most important historic ships, the Polly Woodside in Melbourne?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I have a point of order.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will let me hear this point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Let the minister come clean and tell us what the 16 shonky projects are. The question is directed to him, and he ought to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am delighted to answer it, because they were not shonky. It is very simple.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What are they?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, stop shouting like that. Interjections of the kind that are going on are disorderly.LD4Senator ALSTON—They are quite simply projects that were selected by us from all those projects that were regarded as eligible. In other words, these were not ruled out because they did not meet minimum criteria. Look at that stuff that Seccombe trotted out this morning. I hope you were not responsible for the series of mistakes that he made. Talk about getting it fundamentally wrong—to say that they did not meet minimum criteria when they did, to say that we overturned an independent assessment process when we did not and to go on and say that we are in breach of the caretaker conventions when we were not. Are you responsible for this, or is Seccombe? Make up your mind. I can understand where you are coming from. You even went so far as to suggest that this was worse than the case of Ros Kelly.Let me just remind the Senate why Ros Kelly is relevant to this whole debate. This was the case of the missing coupes. There were four that were non-existent. Senator Faulkner went to cabinet indicating that all of those were of high conservation value, when it turned out that four of them did not exist at all. What did Laurie Oakes say? He said that Senator Faulkner had made a mess of things comprehensively, had intended to make himself a hero of the environment movement, that disillusion was setting in in caucus with Senator Faulkner's performance and that, rather than wanting to be Graham Richardson, he emerges from this episode more like Ros Kelly! There you go. It says it all. We know how to make decisions properly. You clearly did not.7273Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask again for the minister to name the 16 projects. Isn't it true, Minister, that you received a departmental submission on 14 August 1998 where the departments, yours and Senator Hill's, presented to you a list of 114 projects which ranked 15 and above out of a total of 24 points? You and Senator Hill now admit that you approved 16 projects.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Faulkner is again ignoring your repeated urgings to him to address the question through the Chair rather than talking directly to Senator Alston. I know it is very difficult for Senator Faulkner to understand these things, but could you remind him again of what the standing orders say?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you have had an opportunity to ask your supplementary question. You ought not to keep interjecting while the minister answers.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—I thought you had finished that time. Have you got more?5K4Senator FAULKNER—What were the projects, and why were they chosen?7273Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—They were chosen because we judged that they were deserving on the criteria that were adopted. The fundamental mistake that you make is that you somehow think that we were obliged to accept the advice offered. We never were. Anyone who looks at this understands that. I think you even got a glimmer of an understanding of this in estimates. Your trouble is that you have slipped back. When they had the tactics meeting, poor old Mr Beazley, who was on a very big slide, said, `What on earth can we run with this week?' Senator Faulkner said, `Maybe it's about time we dredged up that Federation Fund project again.' After all, you remember that they are not too good on policy. This is the bloke who got dumped as shadow minister for social security. He is now shadow minister for politics. Lord knows what he will do if they ever get to government, because there will not be a portfolio with that responsibility. You know as well as we do that we made the decisions. We took into account the advice that was offered. It was very valuable advice, but we were not going to simply slavishly follow what the department did in terms of cut-off points. You would; we would not. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors727310000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan led by the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, His Excellency Mr Mefleh Al-Rhimi. On behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to the chamber and trust that your visit to this country will be informative and enjoyable.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice727472747274Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Would the minister advise the Senate of the current status of Australia's efforts to get Christopher Skase to answer the criminal charges against him in an Australian court?7274Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Payne for her question. As all senators know, Mr Skase has been the subject of serious criminal charges—company and bankruptcy charges—under Australian law since 1991. A number of warrants have been issued by Australian courts for his arrest, and those warrants remain active. The Australian government is committed to bringing him back to Australia to face these charges. Given the failure of the previous government's attempts to extradite Mr Skase from Spain in 1994, we know our best shot at bringing Mr Skase back to Australia is if he leaves Spain for one reason or another.I would have hoped that this is an issue on which all Australians agree. We could all pull together on this. At least in this instance, we could all be batting on the same team. We could hope that everyone at home wants to bring him home. After all, life is a confidence game. You would not want to think anyone in Australia would be giving confidence to the Skase team. However, on 20 July 1999, the Majorca Daily Bulletin quoted Mr Kerr—the opposition spokesman on these matters—as saying a number of things. Firstly, they quoted him as saying that `the only way Skase will finally be forced back to Australia is if new charges are laid'; secondly, that we, the Australian taxpayers, are wasting our money at the moment; and, thirdly, that `Skase will continue to run rings around the Australian authorities'.If you want to give comfort to people who are overseas who think they can evade authorities, get yourself quoted overseas as saying that the Australian government is wasting its money and that the other side is a bit smarter than the Australian government. It is almost breathtaking, because these comments come from the man who was justice minister at the time the extradition proceedings failed. He was in government at the time. Now we can see why the then Attorney-General would not let him anywhere near the Skase matter: he would have messed it up even more than the Labor government messed it up at the time. For the people who gave Mr Skase a brand spanking new passport and who failed in the extradition proceedings to be now quoted in Spanish newspapers as saying that Mr Skase will run rings around Australian authorities is somewhat breathtaking.Who does Mr Kerr think he is? He goes on and says that we are wasting our money. He does not seem to understand—the proceedings in Spain are between the Spanish government and Mr Skase. We are not funding these proceedings. It is just ludicrous. He does not even understand that much. As to the suggestion that new charges should be laid, Mr Skase would have to commit some new offences. You cannot charge people with something for the fun of it. New charges were laid in 1997, I think, but they related to the same criminal conduct. There can be no new extradition proceedings—Mr Lavarch, as Attorney-General, clearly understood that. We are not wasting taxpayers' money, and Mr Skase is not running rings around Australian authorities. The only upsetting thing is that we have headlines like `Chase for Skase Waste of Money' in the Majorca Daily Bulletin. That undermines the confidence of Spanish authorities in our determination to chase Skase, and it gives a boost to Mr Skase and to all his clan of hangers-on. My view is that Mr Beazley should bite the bullet now and sack Mr Kerr, because he does not understand his job.72747274Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware that, according to his affidavit to the Federal Court, Mr Moore-Wilton concluded in February this year that all departmental secretaries were performing sufficiently well to maintain their positions and receive their 40 per cent salary increases? Is he aware that Mr Moore-Wilton reached this conclusion following discussions with the Minister for Defence and with the concurrence of the Prime Minister? How is it that Mr Moore-Wilton's affidavit shows that Minister Moore indicated his dissatisfaction with Mr Barratt as early as January this year? How is it that Mr Moore-Wilton was able to tell a meeting of departmental secretaries in March this year that no minister was seeking the replacement of their current secretary? Given that Mr Moore-Wilton's own statement to the court details this totally incompatible series of representations, what possible credibility can any of his recommendations ever have on the assessment of the performance and tenure of departmental secretaries?7275Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—No, I have not been trawling through the affidavits filed in the Federal Court. But I have been reflecting overnight on the question asked by Senator Faulkner yesterday. Yesterday's question was based on what Senator Faulkner alleged to be an affidavit of Mr Barratt filed in court, the proceedings of which are current. Today's question relies upon what purports to be an affidavit filed by Mr Max Moore-Wilton in that court proceeding also. I think it is inappropriate for us to speculate on matters arising out of the proceedings that are currently taking place. The more I think about it, the more I think it is totally inappropriate for us to contribute directly or indirectly.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. It may be that Senator Hill does not want to speculate upon these issues. He is entitled to a personal view, but I would ask you to rule that he is required to answer the question that I have directed to him. He is well aware of the issue of the parliamentary sub judice convention, as are all senators in this chamber. He is well aware that that convention is to safeguard legal proceedings from being prejudiced by anything said under privilege. Such a danger of influencing a case is realistic only where comments could influence a juror or a witness. There are no jurors in the Barratt case—even Senator Hill would know that. It is being heard by a judge only—Senator Hill probably knows that—and judges are unlikely to be influenced by parliamentary debate.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—This is a very long point of order, Senator.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is, Madam President, but it is an important one, because he is trying to duck the question. As I understand it, witnesses have concluded giving evidence in this case. I would ask you, Madam President, to direct him to answer this question, as he is required to do. It is not good enough for him to speculate on these matters. He is required to answer them in accordance with the conventions and forms of this place.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. In answering the question, the minister has not raised the question of sub judice as a reason for dealing with the answer to the question. He is answering the question and I cannot direct him as to how he deals with it. He must be relevant to the topic which has been put to him and it is for him to answer that as he sees fit. He has not raised the sub judice question. It would not be relevant if he did, as you have pointed out, but he did not raise it.BH4Senator HILL—As I said, in contrast to Senator Faulkner, I have not been trawling through affidavits filed in the Federal Court that are the subject of current proceedings. The question asked by Senator Faulkner is based upon his assertion that there is an affidavit to a certain effect. I do not know whether that is the case. It would be speculative of me to answer. Furthermore, I think it is also inappropriate to be dealing with these matters whilst the court case is on foot. If Senator Faulkner wishes to make some political point arising out of legal proceedings, it seems to me that the appropriate time to do that is after the proceedings have been completed, not when the proceedings are in process.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You're claiming sub judice, are you?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, it is not your question and you do not have the call.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I am just helping things along.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner is perfectly capable of pursuing his own question.7276Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask Senator Hill whether he would acknowledge the very significant public interest that exists in the Barratt sacking issue, given the light that it sheds on the government that Senator Hill is a member of and the government's handling of public administration responsibilities at the highest level. Now that Mr Barratt has been so unceremoniously dumped by Mr Moore and his former friend the Prime Minister on the basis of underperformance, what does this episode say for the competence of Mr Moore-Wilton and the rigour of his much vaunted lemon hunt review process? Will Mr Moore-Wilton have the responsibility for making recommendations to the Prime Minister in respect of the new performance bonuses for secretaries? In light of the Barratt fiasco, what credibility could any of Mr Moore-Wilton's recommendations have? (Time expired)7276Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The question as I understood it, if I could repeat it in a brief form, was: does the government require high standards of its senior public servants? The answer is yes; it requires demanding and high standards, and it requires that of all secretaries to departments, as of all public servants. If it does not receive performance that it regards to be satisfactory, it will take appropriate action.72767276Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister explain to the Senate why the federal government has delayed in fully implementing the National Pollutant Inventory? If there has been a delay in compiling industry handbooks, why cannot those which have been completed be released so that at least some reporting can begin in line with the original timetable? Is it correct that this delay will also mean that companies will still not have to report highly toxic substances, such as dioxins and hydrochloric acid? Will there also be a delay in the planned review of the operation and scope of the National Pollutant Inventory? Don't all Australians have a right to information now on the release of pollutants into the environment, not in four years time?7276Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for his question. For most industries affected, as I recall, workbooks have been completed and the gathering of information for the reporting process has already taken place. In some industries it has not because the workbooks, as has been mentioned by the honourable senator, have not been completed. That is because, as it turned out—and this is obviously a new experience for Australia—many more workbooks were necessary than was appreciated and the production of those books turned out to be a much more complicated and demanding process than anticipated. The government's desire is to have the process side of the NPI put in place as quickly as possible so that full reporting can take place.I regret the fact that there will be some delay in some sectors as a result of these matters. This government put the NPI in place and we are committed to it. We believe that the public has a right to know and that the NPI will therefore contribute to better public knowledge and community decision making in this regard. In its original concept, the scope of the NPI was designed to be reviewed and it is still to be reviewed in scope—and the honourable senator will know some of those questions, such as whether or not transfers should be included. There is also the issue as to when the expanded list of substances should come into effect. So there are to be reviews and a review is under way. It is taking a little longer than we would have hoped, but it will work. It will provide the community with information that we believe it has a right to know and it will obviously be appreciated by that community, which has concerns about quality matters.7276Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. The minister indicated that there are to be reviews; I would be pleased if he could indicate when those reviews will occur. Is it not the case that the NPI was seen by Australia and agreed to by Australia as a necessary part of our commitment to implement agenda 21 from the environment summit in Rio? The minister has just indicated that part of the review was to look at whether or not the transfer of wastes should be added to the NPI. How is it possible to have an effective NPI in accordance with our international commitments without including waste transfers? Won't this delay that has occurred further delay the possibility of including waste transfers in our overall National Pollutant Inventory, in accordance with the commitments we have given to the international community as well as the Australian community?7277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I think the best course of action would be if I got a full brief for Senator Bartlett on the whole process and timetable. There were clearly differences of view about how many substances should be included. We relied upon gains, I might say, from the experiences of those countries that have been down the path of an NPI before us. The issues of transfer have also been debated extensively internationally. One of the arguments for not including transfers was that they are accounted for otherwise within state regulatory processes.But, accepting that the honourable senator is obviously serious about the detail of this matter, I will get him the full brief which he can consider. If he has any ideas or wants to assist us in our further development of this program, we would be pleased to receive that support, as we have been to receive the support of the Australian Democrats in a number of environmental matters in recent times.72777277Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—I direct my question to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the minister aware of Mr Downer's statement yesterday that he did not notice a cable regarding the issue of peacemaking operations in East Timor because `no minister could read 100,000 cables'? Isn't it a fact that this was actually a category B cable, indicating an important matter requiring urgent attention and action? Doesn't the minister's office receive only 20 to 30 of these cables a day? Is the minister expecting us to believe that no-one in the department ever thought to draw the minister's attention to this high priority cable? Is the minister expecting us to believe that the department never saw fit to provide him with a written brief on the implications for Australia of such a significant development? Is the minister expecting us to believe that the department provided him with no advice or options on the issues arising out of the cable?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Here's your chance, Robert.7277Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I'm a Downer supporter; I think he's doing a brilliant job, Senator.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Hill has just misled the parliament.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BH4Senator HILL—The only misleading I know of today is Senator Faulkner misleading Mike Seccombe—and Graham Richardson, I am sorry, but we can understand that because they were not the best of friends in the old days.Senator Faulkner interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Good mates after this morning, are you? He might not be when he realises that you misled him. In terms of Senator Ray's question, I would have thought that 20 to 30 cables in itself on top of all of the—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—This is going to war stuff.BH4Senator HILL—But the problem is, Senator Bolkus, apparently what was in the cable was inconsistent with what the Americans said publicly yesterday, in any event. It would seem that what Mr Downer was saying was consistent with the public statements of the United States. Senator Ray seems to be saying that it is a hanging offence for Mr Downer not to have read and absorbed 20 to 30 cables a day on top of all his other workload.RF4COOKSenator Cook—We used to do that!Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The sorts of breaches of standing orders going on at present on both sides are unacceptable and make it very difficult for anybody to hear what is being said.Senator Alston interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I am speaking. There is an appropriate time to debate this matter and it can be done after question time, but Senator Hill is entitled to the call at present.Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I have just spoken about disorderly conduct.BH4Senator HILL—We have learnt something today. We have wondered for some time why Senator Cook was so ineffective; we now know that it was because he spent all day reading cables. But I think Senator Ray has made the point himself: 20 to 30 cables a day, plus he expects briefing notes on each of those cables, on top of the total workload is asking a great deal. So one slip, one failure to read one part of one cable on one occasion in my view is not a hanging offence.7278Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. How do we know that this is the one failure? The real point of the question, Senator Hill, is why Mr Downer's staff or Mr Downer's department did not identify this cable as a very significant one? Anyone who looks at the subject matter of American marines going into East Timor post plebiscite would regard this as a very serious issue with implications for Australia. Why didn't the department contact Mr Downer on this? Why didn't Mr Downer's staff draw his attention to it? On how many other occasions—we are entitled to know—has similar material slipped through the net because of poor procedures?7278Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Senator Ray is now asking me to speculate, which is obviously inappropriate; nevertheless, taking the hook—having a go, as they say—it might well be because it would seem that what was in the cable was inconsistent not only with public statements but also with Mr Downer's understanding from his many meetings and other written materials on the very same matter.72787278Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Can the minister inform the Senate of the measures which are being taken to ensure the government's Telstra 2 share offer is accessible to all Australians?7278Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Thank you, Senator Brownhill, for that important question. The government announced on 25 July this year the Telstra 2 offer, an offer which has the potential to include a great number of Australians in owning shares. It is a policy of this government that Australians should regard the dream of owning one's home alongside owning shares. What we have done in this offer is make available to those people who want to pre-register by 16 August this year the opportunity to purchase 400 shares in Telstra. They have the option to put themselves forward for the purchase of even more shares. Existing Telstra shareholders are not required to pre-register, and they will have the opportunity to even further their ownership of Telstra shares.The important aspect of this matter is the question of accessibility. We have written 9.6 million letters to all those who are currently Telstra fixed line customers, to those who registered for the first Telstra offer and did not purchase shares and to all of the brokers' clients. That is a very large mail-out indeed, and it is aimed at including all Australians, giving them the chance to participate in this venture. Anyone who wishes to pre-register can do so over the phone by calling the free call number 1800 181818.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—What are you reading now, Chris—Telstra's ad?9X5Senator ELLISON—Yes, it is an ad. It is a chance to let Australians have a go at becoming part owners in a great Australian company. If this is an ad, so be it.We are also endeavouring to get to those various sectors of the community which do not have English as a first language. We have share offers available in languages such as Chinese, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese and Arabic. We have a translation service available on 131450 for those people who do have trouble with the English language and we also have information being extensively publicised to the indigenous community via three ATSI newspapers and Imparja TV.It is very important that this offer be accessible by all Australians. We also have braille versions of a pre-registration letter, which has been sent out to many Australians. We are indicating by this that we are a government that wants as many Australians as possible to participate in this second offer of Telstra shares. It is good news for Australia and good news for Australians.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Privilege727910000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee, by letter dated 2 August 1999, has raised a matter of privilege under standing order 81. The committee believes that penalties have been imposed upon a witness in consequence of his giving evidence to the committee. The committee's belief is supported by documents attached to its letter, which indicate that action has been taken against the person concerned in direct consequence of his evidence.Past reports by the Committee of Privileges and determinations by the Senate in relation to those reports have indicated that it is a contempt of the Senate to inflict penalties upon a witness in consequence of their evidence, regardless of whether those penalties would otherwise be lawful. In particular, I refer to the 21st, 42nd, 67th and 72nd reports of the committee, all of which have, with the endorsement of the Senate, set out the principle that a person with lawful power to take some adverse action commits a contempt if that action is taken in consequence of evi dence given to a Senate committee by a witness or information laid before the Senate in a less formal manner.The matter raised by the committee therefore clearly meets the criteria I am required to consider. I therefore determine that precedence be given to a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. I table the documents supplied by the committee. A notice of motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee may now be given.15:05:007279Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges:Having regard to the material provided by the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee, whether a witness was penalised in consequence of the witness's communication with that committee, and, if so, whether a contempt was committed in that regard.Miscellaneous72797279727915:06:007279Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, to questions without notice asked today.One thing that the responsible minister for the federation cultural and heritage projects did admit today is that the opposition has been trying to get to the bottom of the issue—the government's handling of this program—ever since the money first began to flow during the last election campaign. We have asked questions without notice and questions on notice, we have trawled through the processes at Senate estimates committees and we have made use of FOI legislation. And what do we find at the end of that process? We now know what we have always suspected, that this program was conceived as a pork-barrel exercise, it was administered as a pork-barrel exercise and it has never been anything but a pork-barrel exercise.The government shoehorned the application assessment and approval processes into an incredibly short time line of less than three months from go to whoa in order to have projects ready for announcement in the course of the last election campaign. Only four weeks were allowed for applications. Remember that these were applications for projects to the value of between $500,000 and $5 million. The government steadfastly ignored opposition requests to extend the deadline. Thirty-two of the 60 successful projects were announced in the course of the election campaign, in spite of the caretaker convention requirement that it is desirable that decisions concerning significant initiatives be announced in advance of the caretaker period in order to avoid controversy.As to the assessment process itself, we know that the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts designed what I admit is an effective and comprehensive system to assess applications and make recommendations. We know that that process, that system, took account of the guidelines of the Auditor-General. But we also know that at the critical point of the process when it reached its conclusion, when the departments presented their recommendations to the responsible ministers, this pair of shabby political operators in the Senate, the government leader and deputy leader in the Senate, pounced.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, could you please use language which does not reflect upon members in this place, unparliamentary or otherwise.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I will, Madam Deputy President. The Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Fund became a Liberal Party marginal seat investment fund. The ministers, Senator Alston and Senator Hill, swept aside the departments' recommendations. They reached into the bottom drawers in their ministerial offices and what they pulled out was 16 pet projects of the Liberal Party; but those 16 pet projects, in the view of the two departments, environment and communications, did not make the grade.What were these projects? What were they worth? Which electorates did they go to? What was the process that these ministers used to select them? What were the ministers' reasons for selecting and approving these projects? The answer is that we do not know. The government has steadfastly refused to tell the parliament and has steadfastly refused to own up. Again today you have got the two ministers who are responsible for this particular program, which is a program of $70 million of taxpayers' money, simply refusing to put the facts on the table.I think we are entitled to know the truth in relation to this program. It is time for a thorough investigation into the government's handling of not just this element of the Federation Fund but the entire $1 billion program. The opposition believes that the Auditor-General would be the appropriate authority to conduct such an investigation, and I indicate to the Senate that I will be writing to the Auditor-General tomorrow about this matter asking him to conduct an audit into the Federation Fund process and projects.15:11:007280Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Faulkner has a lot of faults but one principal fault is that he judges others by the standards and action that he and his fellow ministers took when they were in government. The evidence is legend about the way Labor ministers would rort and pork-barrel. They think that because they did it everyone does it. That is where Senator Faulkner always gets these things wrong. We are not like his government, fortunately; our ministers are not like the ministers in the previous Labor government. You have to look no further than the Centenary House fiasco to understand how the Labor Party rorted the public purse time and time again for the benefit of the Australian Labor Party. I mean the cash benefit of the Australian Labor Party—not trying to win seats but simply giving money into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party.Senator Faulkner thinks that because he and his colleagues participated in those sorts of rorts then every government does. It is not so in the case of our government. You only have to look at Senator Faulkner's position on the Hinchinbrook fiasco to understand what I am talking about. There were lost coupes in the great forest debates and Senator Faulkner could never find them. He got NATLIG to do some ground truthing and then could not even find them. Of course, we remember Mrs Ros Kelly, who got the whiteboard out and picked out the Labor Party seats—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You did not even have a whiteboard excuse. You are hiding the whiteboard.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—So you concede that that is what the Labor Party ministers did, Senator Conroy. You concede that it was the way the Labor Party operated: get out a whiteboard, see where are the Labor marginal seats and then give them grants. That is not the case in our instance. I suppose Senator Conroy is going to say that about the first seven regional transaction centres that have been announced. I suppose he is going to say that they are all in coalition marginal electorates. They well could be, because they are rural transaction centres and in fact the Labor Party holds very few seats in rural Australia, and understandably so. It would be logical that most of those decisions were in electorates held by coalition members, but in fact I think three or four of the first seven are in fact in either Labor held electorates or Independent electorates. That is the way we operate, because we determine things on the basis of what is right and what is appropriate.Certainly the ministers in this case determined, after looking at two sets of assessments, which assessments should be adopted. As Senator Hill tried to point out, by extension what the Labor Party is saying is that 16 of those 60 projects are in fact shonky projects. That is according to the Labor Party and that means the Labor Party is saying that projects like the restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in Sydney is a shonky project. It is saying that projects like the restoration of one of our most important historic ships, the Polly Woodside, in Melbourne is a shonky project. I think that is in a Labor electorate, as is the previous one I mentioned.Are you saying the development of the museum to honour the contribution of Sir John Quick in Bendigo is a shonky project? I think that seat is held by the Labor Party. What of the restoration of the naval stores in Brisbane, one of Brisbane's most important heritage buildings? Again, I think that is in an electorate held by Labor.Senator Conroy interjecting—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—That does not matter. I do not know, and those sorts of things do not figure in the determinations we make. The restoration of Townsend House in Adelaide, one of Australia's first schools for the deaf and blind—are you calling that a shonky project, Senator Conroy? These projects all met the basic criteria. Senator Hill or Senator Alston or Mr McGauran, who made the decisions—and I am not even sure who did make the decisions, but anyway the ministers who did so—did so on the basis of two sets of advice which they then had to look at to determine the projects were all meeting the basic criteria. None of those that were selected failed to meet them. (Time expired)15:16:007281Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—The motion before us is to take note of answers given by Senator Hill and the first question Senator Hill received today was one from me on trade. Before I turn to the faults in that answer and the confusion in government ranks about its trade policy, let me say it is refreshing—at least I find this thing refreshing—that a minister should come into the chamber in the taking note debate and defend the government. More ministers should do that because more ministers are involved in things that are answerable in this chamber. Although I do not accept anything that Senator Ian Macdonald said, I acknowledge that at least he as a minister came forward and spoke.On the trade policy question, let me put on the record now a couple of facts that are inconvenient for the government and which the self-styled `superb economic managers of Australia' overlook when they talk to the Australian community about their economic credentials. What is the level of foreign debt in Australia? You recall that before the last election the government ran around with a debt truck, claiming that Labor was running the foreign debt of Australia further up. In 1996, the year of that election, the level of foreign debt in Australia was $192 billion. What is it now? It is $242 billion, an increase of $50 billion or 26 per cent, and per capita the level of foreign debt in Australia is $12,500 per Australian, which is an Australian all-time record. So the government that campaigned on foreign debt has made foreign debt worse. That is the first statistic.Let me go to the second statistic and the question of Australia's balance of trade in goods and services, our trade account. In 1996-97 we were in the black by $1.57 billion. That is the last financial year in which Labor was in government. We had a surplus in our trade account of $1.57 billion. Last year—1998-99—we had a trade deficit of $14.9 billion. There has been a turnaround of $16 billion in our trade account, not a turnaround for the better but a turnaround for the worse. This government claimed that it fireproofed the Australian economy from the Asian economic contagion. It did not; it ran our account down by $16 billion in the space of about two years. That deficit is also a record.You have never heard that from Mr Costello. It is an inconvenient fact that Australia is not doing too well on the trade front. Therefore, when the selection of a minister to replace the outgoing Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, was made, the government turned to Mr Vaile. His debut performance was on the Sunday program with Laurie Oakes a couple of weeks ago. What did he do? He bungled his entire brief. This person does not know what he should do on trade. The day after he bungled his brief, the Prime Minister contradicted him on the lawns of the White House in Washington, saying that Australia would not use its US bases as a pawn in negotiating trade matters. The Prime Minister contradicted him again by saying that Australia would not pause in its thrust of tariff reform and would not take a stance in which it said the rest of the world had to catch up. The Prime Minister said we would continue to provide the leadership for international trade reform and use that principled position to encourage the world to follow. The Prime Minister contradicted his own trade minister almost within 24 hours of that minister venturing into public comment.One in five jobs in Australia depend on it being a nation of exporters. Twenty per cent of our economy is devoted to exports. We have an incompetent at the helm of Trade—a critical portfolio for more jobs and greater economic growth—right on the verge of the APEC conference in Auckland, New Zealand, next September and the WTO conference in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November-December this year. These are the two international events in which Australia can change the rules in APEC and the WTO to help Australia's exporters. What have we done? We have sent exactly the wrong signal to the world community. We have said, `We are renouncing leadership. We are going into regression. We are not going to pursue the policies that we used to, we are going to duck them.' (Time expired)15:21:007282Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—It is interesting that Senator Faulkner first raised the issue of the Federation Fund in responding to answers to questions, and yet Senator Cook went off on a frolic about trade. There has not been a worse trade minister than Senator Cook in this parliament and yet he has the gall to come in here and criticise Mr Vaile who has been doing an outstanding job. Senator Cook was the one who came into this parliament in Labor's last term of government and said that the budget was in the black. What was it? It was $10 billion in the red. This is a senator who simply cannot do his sums. For Senator Cook to come in here and criticise Mr Vaile is absolute nonsense.Let me go back to the question that Senator Faulkner asked of Senator Hill and Senator Alston. That question was about the Federation Fund. He was trying to suggest that some of those things were shonky. That was the word he used—`shonky'. Yet, when Senator Alston started to give examples of some of the projects that had been funded through the fund, Senator Faulkner jumped to his feet and took a spurious point of order in an effort to silence Senator Alston.Let me go through some of the issues. Some of the fund grants that Senator Alston was talking about were: the restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in Sydney; the restoration of one of our most important historic ships, the Polly Woodside in Melbourne; the development of a museum to honour the contribution of Sir John Quick in Bendigo; the restoration of the Naval Stores in Brisbane—one of that cities most important heritage buildings; support for the Balgo Hills Arts Centre in the Kimberley, which promotes the efforts of some our best indigenous artists; and the restoration of Townsend House in Adelaide, one of Australia's first schools for the deaf and blind. They are just some examples.These projects are judged against six criteria. Those criteria are the significance, the lasting nature of it, the appropriate form for the Centenary of Federation, benefits to the broader community, good management capability, and partnerships in funding. The Labor Party, as usual, wants to deem itself irrelevant in the total operation of government in Australia. Labor senators come in here and criticise everything that is going on. The claims in the Sydney Morning Herald in relation to the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program continue the Herald's history of incorrectly reporting how grants are awarded.I might add that the government is quite proud of the contribution it was able to make to the 60 projects supported by the Federation Fund through this program. Senator Faulkner has tried to criticise this—mind you, he tries to criticise everything—in terms of the announcements that were made during the election campaign. Some projects were announced during the 1998 election campaign, but what Senator Faulkner is not bright enough to realise is that this is not in breach of the caretaker conventions, which state that significant decisions should not be made during the campaign. These decisions were made before the campaign period came into effect and were merely announced during the caretaker period. That is not an uncommon practice and nothing is wrong or illegal about that practice.The problem is that the Labor Party people will not accept the rules of the game. They know exactly what they did. That is why Senator Faulkner's own colleagues said that his incompetence, his sheer stupidity, left Ros Kelly way behind. Is it any wonder? If the ALP believe that any of the 60 projects should not have received Commonwealth support then they should simply say so. They should be up front. They should tell the Australian people which projects should not have received funding. They are not game to do that. They come in here and keep referring to shonky projects. Senator Faulkner has not been able to identify even one of those. He simply smears all the projects.Today's report in the Sydney Morning Herald contains a large number of errors or unjustified innuendos. The Herald has claimed that 16 projects did not meet the minimum criteria. That is plainly wrong. The Herald has not been able to substantiate that argument. (Time expired)15:26:007283Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I also rise to take note of Senator Hill's answers. Briefly, on the issue that Senator Knowles was speaking about, the simple test that we have here is to name the 16. Which marginal Liberal seats were they in? Cough it up. It is no coincidence that they were prepared to announce the successful projects during the election campaign. By coincidence, they managed not to announce whom the unsuccessful candidates were. Only the successful candidates were told of their success during the campaign. All the other groups who put in applications for grants were not told until after the election.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—You're fraudulent and incorrigible.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot, would you care to withdraw that comment, please. It is totally unparliamentary.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Would you like me to withdraw `fraudulent' or `incorrigible', Madam Deputy President?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot, unconditionally withdraw all unparliamentary language. You have been in parliament long enough to know what that is.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—I will unequivocally withdraw `fraudulent'.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you. So the test is, why don't you just fess up and tell the Australian public and the parliament what electorates the 16 were in?However, I did not actually come here to talk about that today. I am here to talk about Mr Vaile. What an embarrassment. Senator McGauran could do a better job. Frankly, we have a situation where, on his first major outing, Mr Vaile decided to humiliate the Prime Minister, who was about to meet President Clinton, by announcing that the PM should link bases with beef. What did the Prime Minister have to do 24 hours later, as Senator Cook has already said? He had to slam dunk Mr Vaile on the lawns of the White House. That is what happened.Mr Vaile argues that we must stop and rest to allow everybody else to catch up. How bizarre. If we were in a situation where we were out in front and it was of benefit to the country, why would we want to stop to let everybody else in the world catch up? We have got the lead. We have got the edge. Why say, `No, it is time to rest on our laurels and waste that edge and let the rest of the world catch us up'? What an extraordinary position to take.`We fireproofed the economy,' is the proud boast of the government. In their more generous moments they have been prepared to concede that some of the structural reforms in the 13 years of Labor government helped in some of that fireproofing. But what should we do now? He says, `We have improved the core structure of the economy.' Yes, but why would you sit on your hands? Why would you stop? Why would you turn your back on those improvements to the core structure of the economy? We know what is really going on in the National Party. We know why Mr Vaile did not even want to be the trade minister, why he has always run the contrary line when he is out there, when One Nation have been campaigning in the bush. Laurie Oakes asked Mr Vaile in a Sunday program interview:If I can just quote exactly what you said seven months ago, in an interview with the Weekly Times . You said maybe in some cases Australia should be the one being dragged to the line, instead of the one leading the charge. And you also said that Australia had moved up to the line quicker than necessary in cutting its own protection levels.This question is to a minister who says, `We've improved the core structure of the economy but let's turn our back. We've gone too far.' We have gone too far but we have improved the core structure of the economy? Mr Vaile is playing ducks and drakes. He is schizophrenic. You have put a bloke into this portfolio who says:We're in a unique situation, as we've improved the core structure of the economy, the way that we're manufacturing, the way we're producing in this country and exporting, we're becoming far more competitive.But then he says, `Let's turn our back on that. Let's pause.' We know what is going on. We know that, in the vote for the leadership between Causley and Anderson, Vaile is really in the Causley camp. He is just stalking Anderson.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, please refer to members by their correct title.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Mr Vaile is stalking Anderson. That is what is really going on. We heard the vote was only—(Time expired)15:31:007284McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I rise to challenge the absurd and amateurish guesswork of the senator across the chamber in his analysis of the National Party's inner workings. One thing you can say about the National Party's inner workings is that what happens inside the National Party room stays there. Our room never leaks like your room, Senator Conroy. One thing you can say about the Labor Party caucus meetings is that they leak like a sieve. Faction by faction they leak. You never know what is happening inside the National Party, nor will you ever know the result of our ballots. We shred the ballot papers straight after the ballot, so I can tell you that, whatever you might have read, whatever you might guess, you will never know, because we do not even know the details of the results of the ballots.But when it comes to appointing trade ministers, this is a portfolio that the National Party have always held. From the days of Black Jack McEwen we have stamped our party's policies and influence upon the trade portfolio right up until now. We have always given it the leader's or the deputy leader's status.But what about the past government? Who knows who the trade ministers were in the past government? We do not have a clue—or the public haven't. I know it was Senator Cook, but I can tell you that not many people know Senator Cook. I only know you by your two points of fame. You were the one who signed the GATT agreement that put us onto the World Trade Organisation. Congratulations. But I also know you for another important matter. You are the only trade minister who never did any work during breakfast or before breakfast. That is the perception. That is the reputation. Tim Fischer ran rings around you. He did a day's work before breakfast. You are the trade minister who said, `I don't want any meetings. I have to have my breakfast, and then I'll go off and do a meeting.' So you kicked off at about 9 o'clock, I would say, which is the normal time to clock in for the unionists.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You wouldn't know.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—That is what they said. Deny it! Did you issue that memo, Senator Cook, when you were trade minister—let us put the story straight—that you did not want any meetings before or during breakfast when most trade ministers wrap up their day? That is when most of the work is done in other countries. That is the tradition—you get out there. But you are also known for the signing of the World Trade Agreement. The moment the ink dried on that agreement the Labor Party forgot it. You walked out from it. You slashed and burnt the tariffs in this country. You never put in place the support packages or the restructure packages—for example, in the citrus industry. I remember supporting the restructure of the citrus industry when I sat on the other side of the chamber, but the great concern then—and they paid the high price—was that you never put in place the proper restructure packages to match the liberalisation of Australia's trade barriers, whereas this government has put in those support packages. For example, we will see those support packages when the deregulation of the dairy industry is put into place.The point I am making is that we have a two-pronged approach—unlike you. You acted as trade minister with one policy—signing the big picture APEC agreements, the multilateral trade agreements—whereas Tim Fischer brought in the two-pronged approach. We did not deny that the multilateral agreements had their purpose, but we brought in the most important bilateral agreements. We brought a focus back to bilateral agreements. And thank goodness Tim Fischer did that in his time as trade minister, because when the Asian economic crisis came upon us and we started losing trade in that area—and APEC basically up until now has lost its oomph—we were able to rely on those bilateral agreements. We sent our trade minister out on the road to open up new markets, like Europe. In Europe alone our exports increased by some 40 per cent during the last 12 months. We opened up markets in South America that we have never had before. Did you ever go to South America? Did you ever go to India? Did you ever open up new markets in the Middle East in the live cattle trade that we had lost?RF4COOKSenator Cook—Yes.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—You never did. You just went to the big forums, the APEC forums. You wasted your time in those areas. Tim Fischer as trade minister burrowed away and opened up new agreements. He got rice into Japan, opened up new beef exports into the Middle East, got live cattle trade into Taiwan, got new markets in India, and new markets in South America. You never got off your butt and went into those countries.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.728610001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:7286110WH4 WW4McGauran Sen Julian; Kemp Sen RodTo the Speaker and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the churches and charities for food and the necessities of life; and calls upon the federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned members of Ladies' Group at the Uniting Church, Blackburn South, Victoria 3130, petition the Senate in support of the abovementioned motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.Senator McGauranWH4Senator McGauran(from 55 citizens)Senator KempWW4Senator Kemp(from 55 citizens)72868353L6Conroy Sen StephenTo the Right Honourable, the President of the Senate and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that we as citizens of Australia share a common belief that:It is the right of every Australian to have services, including financial services, available to them which are accessible, user friendly, conveniently located and provided at reasonable cost.Continuing closure of bank branches in rural and suburban communities throughout Australia is a denial of that right.Bank branch closures are demonstrably causing hardship and distress.Further bank mergers will inevitably lead to a further reduction in services, higher charges and job loss.The banking sector occupies a privileged and secure status relative to other businesses in Australia and as such has a clear community service obligation.This community service obligation should be mandatory for all banks. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to conduct an enquiry into the banking industry in Australia, the terms of reference of such enquiry to include, but not be limited to, the social and economic effects of the withdrawal or reduction of banking services from rural and suburban communities and in particular the effect of such closures on small businesses operating in those communities, and the likely consequences of further bank mergers.Senator Conroy3L6Senator Conroy(from 835 citizens)Petitions received.Notices72867286Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes the findings of a national report, released on 10 August 1999, that indigenous Australians, as a group, are still the most disadvantaged in almost every area, including housing, education, employment, and morbidity and mortality rates;(b) expresses deep concern that the findings of this report include: (i) the fact that many indigenous men and women will die before their 50th birthday, (ii) twice as many indigenous babies will die at birth, (iii) death rates for indigenous Australians in the 35 to 54 year old age bracket are six to eight times higher than for non-indigenous people, (iv) the unemployment rate for indigenous people is 23 per cent, compared to 9 per cent for non-indigenous people, and (v) indigenous people are still vastly over-represented in prison; and(c) calls on federal, state and territory governments to take immediate steps to rectify the current disadvantage suffered by indigenous people.Senator Chapman to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate, on 23 August 1999, from 7.30 pm to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 1998 .Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with the gravest concern, the recent Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) decision to allow the importation of uncooked and partly processed salmon product into Australia;(b) in noting the AQIS decision, believes that it ignores the very real risk of exotic fish diseases finding their way into the Australian freshwater marine environment with disastrous consequences for Australia's recreational fisheries, native fish populations and currently disease-free salmon farming industry;(c) seriously questions the AQIS decision, given the lack of scientific research on the potential for these diseases to afflict resident fish populations in Australia;(d) considers the risk placed on Australia's natural water environs as unacceptable; and(e) calls on the Government to reject the AQIS recommendations to lift the quarantine restrictions.7287Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:(1) That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.(2) That standing order 110 be suspended to enable the third reading of the bill to be passed without a roll call.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 SPRING SITTINGSCONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PREAMBLE) 1999Purpose of the proposed lawThe Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 would insert a preamble into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The preamble would be located just after the title. Enactment of the proposed law is subject to the outcome of a referendum proposed for 6 November 1999.Clause 4 of the proposed law would insert a new s.125A into the Constitution to provide that the preamble would have no legal force and not be considered in interpreting the Constitution or any law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth.Reason for urgencyThe Government proposes to put the proposed law to the people at a referendum on 6 November 1999 in conjunction with a question on whether Australia should become a republic. The cost of a separate referendum on the preamble would not be justified.Section 128 of the Constitution requires that a referendum be held not less than 2 and not more than 6 months after the passage of a proposed Constitution Alteration. This requirement, in conjunction with statutory requirements for the holding of referendums that need to be met by the Australian Electoral Commission, require the proposed law to be passed by 20 August if a referendum is to be held on 6 November. The last scheduled Parliamentary sitting before 20 August is 12 August. If the proposed law is not passed by then, it will not be possible to have a question on a new preamble at the 6 November referendum.For the above reasons, it is necessary that the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 be introduced and passed in 1999 Spring sittings.(Circulated by the authority of the Prime Minister)Senator O'Brien to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Macdonald), no later than 5 pm on 23 August 1999, the following:(a) the report by Mr Stephen Skehill on the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Laurie Foley to the position of Assistant Director Aviation Safety Compliance in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and all material considered by Mr Skehill in his investigation;(b) all minutes of the CASA Board and the Board Safety Committee relating to the process of establishing the position of Assistant Director Aviation Safety Compliance and the process of recruiting Mr Foley for that position;(c) all documents prepared by Mr Wes Willoughby, Mr Spencer Stuart and CASA officers relating to the establishment of the position of Assistant Director Aviation Safety Compliance and the recruitment of Mr Foley to that position; and (d) the transcript from the proceedings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal application V1998/11/92, Melbourne, 30 July 1999.Committees72887288728815:40:007288Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 12th report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I also seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 12 OF 19991. The Committee met on 10 August 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend-(a) That the provisions of the following bills be referred to committees:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateSuperannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics15 September 1999Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade30 September 1999Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referralimmediatelyEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education29 November 1999(b) That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999. Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Services) Bill 1999. Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999. Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999. Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 . Republic (Consultation on an Elected President) Bill 1999. States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999. Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999. Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999. Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999. Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999. War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 20 April 1999). Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999. Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 25 May 1999). ACIS Administration Bill 1999. ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 22 June 1999). Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 29 June 1999). Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999. Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999. Tradex Scheme Bill 1999. Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2].(deferred from meeting of 10 August 1999). A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999. Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Electronic Transactions Bill 1999. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1999. Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999. General Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Parliamentary Service Bill 1999. Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 . Superannuation Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair11 August 1999Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Superannuation Contribution and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Consideration of Government amendments to superannuation surcharge tax.Especially clarification of `surchargeable contributions' for defined benefit funds or contributions holiday.Possible submissions or evidence from:Noel Davis, Clayton Utz, ASFA, Institute of Actuaries.Committee to which bill is to be referred:Senate Economics Legislation Committee.Possible Hearing date(s): 30 August 1999—2 September 1999Possible reporting date: 30 September 1999(signed)Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee MemberAppendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill No. 1 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:This bill contains a number of proposals which relate to the Government's election promises. It would be very useful to give the veterans' community an opportunity to comment on the bill's content.Possible submissions or evidence from:The major Veterans' Organisations.Committee to which bill is to be referred:preferably Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. Possible hearing date(s): Friday or evenings of a sitting week.Possible reporting date: End of September 1999.(signed)Whip/Selection of Bills Committee MemberAppendix 3Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Complex legislation that requires detailed analysis.Legislation has significant community impact particularly in view of original 1996 legislation and outcomes.The committee's inquiry should have particular reference to:(a) the impact of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, including (but not limited to):(i) whether the principal objects of the Act (particularly paragraphs 3(j) and (k) have been fulfilled in practice;(ii) the impact on wages, employment, productivity and industrial disputation levels;(iii) the impact on job security, unfair dismissals, job prospects, the protection of employee entitlements and conditions, and whether these can be improved;(iv) the impact on the balance between work and family responsibilities, and whether these can be improved;(v) the balance provided between the roles, rights and obligations of employers (including small business), employees and their representative organisations;(vi) the powers, standing and procedures of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the Office of the Employment Advocate and the Industrial Registrar;(vii) whether provisions to promote industrial democracy and employee ownership can be enhanced; and(b) in light of the committee's findings in relation to the matters listed in paragraph (a), the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999, and all relevant matters related thereto.Possible submissions or evidence from:As per 1996 Workplace Relations Act with added emphasis on disadvantaged groups. Committee to which bill is to be referred:Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee.Possible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date:Under discussion with Democrats. Currently 6 December 1999.(signed)Whip/Selection of Bills Committee memberNotices72907290Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 254 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to year 2000 (Y2K) compliance, postponed till 12 August 1999.Committees729072907290Motion (by Senator Calvert and Senator O'Brien) agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in October 1999:The effectiveness of the legal and regulatory regimes governing the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and the need to ensure transparency, consistency, scientific rigour and the highest standards of protection of the environment, the local fish population and the fishing and recreational fishing industries of Australia, having regard, in particular, to the administrative procedures and decision-making processes involved in the recent AQIS decision to allow the importation of salmon products into Australia.Business72907290Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. Committees729172917291Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke) agreed to:(1) That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, agreed to on 1 July 1998 and varied on 9 March 1999, be further varied in accordance with this resolution.(2) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats and 1 nominated by independent or minor party senators.(3) The quorum of the committee be 3 members, with 1 member present being appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Australian Democrats or by independent or minor party senators.(4) At least one member of any subcommittee be a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats or by independent or minor party senators.(5) The committee report on or before the first sitting day of October 1999.Miscellaneous7291Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That the Senate notes—(a) that 12 August 1999 is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Geneva Convention;(b) that the convention forms part of international human rights law by providing a framework for the protection of persons engaged in armed conflict or hostilities, including civilians, or those who are sick, wounded, in detention, or in any other circumstances, so that they shall be treated humanely and without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria;(c) that the convention prohibits: (i) violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, (ii) the taking of hostages, (iii) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment, and (iv) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of execution without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples;(d) the role of humanitarian non-government organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the role they perform in providing protection and assistance to those in distress;(e) that the convention is a necessary international instrument and has a unique and important role to play in recognising that human suffering, conflict and war is not particular to time, race, religion or culture; and(f) that the convention is important in bringing to justice, those who violate the human rights of others.Committees72917291729115:42:007291Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and I ask that it be taken as formal.15:43:007291Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—We have not seen the amendment. It has only just been circulated. We do not know whether it is good, bad or indifferent. If Senator Allison can do this, if it is not time critical, perhaps we could defer it for one day so we can have a look at it.1M6ALLISONSenator Allison—As I understand it, the government was not supporting this in any case.15:44:007292Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I thank Senator Allison for talking with my office and making considerable amendments to what is an extremely good and important motion. This is an inquiry into Australia's response on global warming. Having just spoken to a group of Australian youngsters concerned about the future of the environment, what could be more important than this? It is an extremely important Senate inquiry. It will require the goodwill of government if it is going to function adequately. I certainly hope the government will come on side and make it a multipartisan effort to review Australia's performance and the way ahead as far as Australia is concerned in response to the global concern about global warming. It would be terrific if the government, in its deliberations—even if it does take another day—came on board and supported this inquiry. It will to be a very important marker and informative inquiry for politicians as well as the rest of the nation. This is an issue that is not going to go away in the lifetime of any of us.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion as amended be taken as formal. There being no objection, I call Senator Allison.Motion (by Senator Allison)—as amended, by leave—put:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August 2000:The progress and adequacy of Australia's policies to reduce global warming, including:(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) whether Australia is likely to meet its commitments under the framework convention December 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the potential costs if it does not, (ii) the international response to the Framework Convention, (iii) the development of an effective international and domestic emissions trading system, (iv) the effectiveness of Australia's policies in comparison to international practice, such as emissions trading regimes and other measures, (v) the level, and greenhouse implications, of the direct and indirect economic incentives currently offered to both fossil fuel and renewable energy projects, (vi) the effectiveness of existing local, state and federal government policies and programs and their implementation, (vii) the economic, employment and development consequences of greenhouse abatement measures, with particular reference to regional Australia and the differential impact on each state and territory, (viii) the social and equity consequences of greenhouse abatement, (ix) the effectiveness of industry programs and policies in actual emission reduction, (x) Australia's contribution to global greenhouse gas abatement through export of alternative energy sources, (xi) additional measures, including, but not limited to, carbon trading, (xii) the adequacy and effectiveness of greenhouse gas emission inventories, and (xiii) the potential for carbon leakage associated with energy intensive industries to countries not party to the framework convention;(b) whether Australian government programs and policies, both state and federal, are sufficient to provide for the development in Australia of emerging renewable energy, energy efficiency industries, the more efficient use of energy sources, the implementation of new energy technologies (eg fuel cells, hydrogen), including: (i) the effectiveness of Australia's efforts in relation to other 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, (iv) the impact of current land management practices and policies on current and projected greenhouse emissions, and the potential for Australian agriculture in greenhouse abatement measures, (v) the potential role for vegetation as carbon sinks and emission reduction by decreasing land clearing, and (vii) the availability and effectiveness of other means of sequestration as an abatement option; 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. Question put.15:50:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)37Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Faulkner, J. P. Patterson, K. C. L.Forshaw, M. G. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous7293Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) expresses grave concern that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has found that amendments to Native Title legislation appear to `wind back protections of indigenous title offered in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia';(b) supports the committee's call for Australia `to address these concerns as a matter of utmost urgency';(c) condemns the Government for its refusal to acknowledge the basis for the committee's condemnation of the Coalition's Wik amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 and the negative impact these changes have had on Australia's indigenous peoples;(d) urges the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to immediately `reopen discussions with the representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with a view to finding solutions acceptable to the indigenous peoples and which would comply with Australia's obligation under the Convention'; and(e) calls on the Prime Minister to invite members of the committee to visit Australia and examine the situation first hand, in communication with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.Committees729472947294Motion (by Senator Chris Evans)—as amended by leave—agreed to: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 may be improved, with particular reference to:(a) the adequacy of current funding levels to meet future demand for public hospital services in both metropolitan and rural Australia;(b) current practices in cost shifting between levels of government for medical services, including the MBS, pharmaceutical costs, outpatient clinics, aged and community care, therapeutic goods and the use of hospital emergency services for primary care;(c) the impact on consumers of cost shifting practices, including charges, timeliness and quality of services;(d) options for re-organising state and commonwealth funding and service delivery responsibilities to remove duplication and the incentives for cost shifting to promote greater efficiency and better health care;(e) 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;(f) the impact of the private health insurance rebate on demand for public hospital services;(g) the interface between public and private hospitals, including the impact of privatisation of public hospitals and the scope for private hospitals to provide services for public patients;(h) the adequacy of current procedures for the collection and analysis of data relating to public hospital services, including allied health services, standards of care, waiting times for elective surgery, quality of care and health outcomes; and(i) the effectiveness of quality improvement programs to reduce the frequency of adverse events.Notices72947294Senator Bartlett 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 December 1999:(a) an examination of fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, including: (i) the impacts of fisheries on the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef, (ii) an assessment of whether the fisheries in the reef are ecologically sustainable, (iii) the reforms needed to ensure ecological sustainability in fishing practices and management, (iv) state and federal fisheries management, policies and practices, (v) an assessment of the adequacy of legislative framework regulating fisheries, (vi) an identification of the various commonwealth and state agencies with responsibility for managing fisheries in the reef, (vii) an evaluation of the adequacy of management of fisheries by those agencies and whether they are discharging their responsibilities properly, (viii) whether those agencies are properly resourced, and (ix) the best way of achieving structural adjustment for fisheries in the reef;(b) the adequacy of the areas of protection for biodiversity found in the World Heritage Area, with particular reference to: (i) current zoning including green zones ('no take zones'), (ii) the comprehensive, adequate and representative areas program, (iii) whether those areas should be increased, and (iv) the timeline for increasing those areas; and (c) the potential impacts on the World Heritage Area and associated intertidal zones from all coastal oil shale mines, including: (i) increased sediment pollution of sea grass and mangrove systems due to land clearing, construction and mining, (ii) disturbance of acid sulphate soils, (iii) disturbance of clay material in the marine environment, (iv) offsite water and air pollution from the project sites, (v) future increases in oil tanker traffic, including oil spills from accidents during transport and oil loading and transfer, and (vi) the impact of open cut mining in the World Heritage Area and associated intertidal zones.Committees72957295729515:56:007295O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the 12th report of 1999 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 11 1999 , dated 11 August 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents72957295729510000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General:Report No. 7 1999-2000—Protective Security Audit—Operation of the classification system for protecting sensitive information.Bills7295s206729515:57:007295Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present the report of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7295729515:58:007295Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Copyright Amendment (Importation of Sound Recordings) Bill 1999 , together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7295r7847295Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.729515:59:007295Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—This bill makes various amendments to Defence legislation which are associated with the Government's commitment to improving the management and administration of the Defence organisation.The first set of amendments made by the bill establishes a urinalysis drug testing scheme. This will apply to members of the Australian Defence Force who undertake combat and combat-related duties, and forms a key element of the Defence Force's `No Drugs' policy. The scheme will help to ensure that members of the Defence Force will continue to discharge their duties in a safe, efficient and effective manner.Selection for testing will be made on a random basis. Safeguards will ensure the dignity and privacy of the members to be tested, and ensure that they are notified of the testing requirements and results. Samples will be forwarded to an Australian Standards accredited laboratory for testing for illegal drugs such as Cocaine, Opiates, Cannabinoids and Amphetamines.Commanding Officers will initiate administrative action against individuals detected using illegal drugs under this scheme. Administrative action will include an assessment by a qualified medical practitioner of the individual's fitness for further service. Other administrative action that can be taken against a member includes reduction in rank as well as posting action. However, members who are detected using illegal drugs under the scheme will not be charged under the Defence Force Discipline Act, given the range of administrative action that can be taken against them.The second set of amendments:enable the Chief of the Defence Force, the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Army and the Chief of Navy to be transferred to the Reserves, on the expiration of fixed term appointments; andenable officers who are subject to limited-tenure promotion or management initiated early retirement to be transferred to the Reserves on the expiration of the limited-tenure promotion or relevant management initiated early retirement period.2.At present, these officers must as a general rule be retired at the expiration of these periods. As an alternative, the amendments will enable them to be transferred to the Reserves before the expiration of these periods, where they request this action.These amendments will maintain access to these officers' expertise, and avoid the more cumbersome present requirement of an officer being first retired from the Defence Force and then appointed to the Reserves under separate processes. The retention of these officers in the Reserves will also enhance the Defence Force's capacity for rapid expansion should an emergency situation develop at some stage in the future. Corresponding amendments will be made to the regulation provisions dealing with officers in the Air Force.The third set of amendments enable the Chief of Army and the Chief of Navy to delegate their powers to retire officers and terminate officer appointments (including their powers in relation to management initiated early retirement) to an officer not below the rank Brigadier or Commodore. This will bring the Army and Navy provisions into line with the corresponding Air Force provisions, and enable the devolution of the management of these matters to more appropriate areas in the Defence Force.The fourth set of amendments extends, from 3 to 5 years, the time limitation that applies to most charges under the Defence Force Discipline Act, and removes an obsolete provision from that act. The extension of the time limitation on charging persons results from the Government's response to the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the crash of a RAAF Nomad Aircraft.The final set of amendments are essentially technical in nature, and include the repeal of the Supply and Development Act which formerly provided the legislative framework for defence production activities. With the creation of Government-owned companies such as Australian Defence Industries in the late 1980s and the closure of all the remaining factories, the act no longer serves a useful purpose.I am confident that the Senate will support the legislation.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Bills7296s8417296Consideration resumed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The committee is considering government amendment No. 1 on sheet EE205 moved by Senator Ellison. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. (Quorum formed)Question resolved in the affirmative.16:02:007296Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Before we go further, I was just about to answer a question put to me by Senator Brown in relation to the question of the time of qualification and how it related to nomination. I dealt with those aspects of disability which would disqualify someone from being able to be put forward as a President of this country under the proposed legislation. The amendment is not designed to give politicians a chance. It is designed to give a chance to a wider class of people, such as judges, people who are in the public service and teachers. That was really the means to open up that class of person and say, `Whilst we are deciding the question of nominations, we are not precluded from doing so simply because they happen to be a judge or in the employment of the public service.' It is not a question of getting politicians into the position of President; it is more a question of widening the choices at the time when nominations are considered. That is the government answer in relation to the previous amendment which has now been dealt with.16:04:007297Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have a brief comment on what Senator Ellison has just said. It has been dealt with. I hope that my opposition to it will be recorded. Senator Murray was quite right when he said that it puts paid to the argument that this is an alternative which will prevent political appointments to the presidency. I simply put it this way: if there is a candidate, be they in the field of the judiciary or in politics, who is an aspirant to the presidency, they should stand down to be available for nomination to the committee and not just stand down when they know that they have gone through the process and been selected. Because of that situation, we are going to see in the future without doubt prime ministers nominating favoured members of cabinet to the presidential post and then having the people stand down both from the cabinet and from the political party. I do not think that is a good precedent. If somebody is really going to put their career on the line for this post, they should stand down before the nominations are sorted out by the Presidential Nominations Committee. That is why I opposed that last amendment.16:05:007297Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I have great respect for Senator Brown, who has contributed much to this chamber, but it seems to me that the provision under discussion is a reasonable one. First of all, I think it is wrong for us to downplay politicians. As soon as I say that, everybody will say, `Yes, you're supporting politicians.' The thing to remember is that, by and large, politicians— and we have heard maiden speeches today and earlier in the week—come here with the intent of doing what is good for the country. The category of politicians, for a start, is not a category that should be condemned as such. If you look at their performance overall, they are a category that have striven to do well by this country. There are great examples of politicians in the past. The people who wrote the Constitution were, by and large, politicians. In my view, it would be wrong to make people give up a political allegiance before they had to. I can see nothing wrong with a person who is a member of a political party being appointed to the judiciary, as now happens, and then giving it up on being appointed, having been warned.In other words, if we take the approach suggested by Senator Brown, people would have to give up a right, an entitlement and a contribution that they were making to the community to take the position. Once appointed to the position, they should—as this requires—give up allegiances which may in fact make them biased or give them the appearance of being biased. But I do not think that, simply because a person has been a member of a political party or a member of this chamber, the other chamber or any other parliament, they should be disqualified thereby.I come back to the issue of the way politics works and the fact that there are forces that would prevent happening what Senator Brown quite properly raises as an issue for us to discuss. It is proper for us to make sure that things are done properly and appear to be done properly. This provision enables that to be done. I do not want to see us talking ourselves down, discounting the currency, as it were. Senator Brown, for example, makes an excellent contribution to the country. He is a politician. He has done much for this nation, and so have many others here. So I make the points that the term `politician' should not be a derogatory term, that there are political forces that operate to ensure that whoever is appointed is a good appointment—in a democracy, people are subject to elections, which are every three years in this case—and that there are protections in the political process of an open society where everything is patent and out in the public arena, where there is accountability and where that accountability is impressed.16:09:007298Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move amendment No. 5 on sheet 1472 revised:(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 12), at the end of the paragraph, add: ; (iii) the person must not have held office as President for more than one term of office.As the clerk rightly points out on the running sheet, amendment No. 5 can coexist with the government amendment just passed. This amendment adds a stricture to the tenure of a President and therefore disqualifies any President who has reached the appropriate tenure term from being put up as President again. In the background of this amendment is an issue which probably needs a brief airing and needs to be noted for the record. That is the issue as to whether a member of the executive—which, whether a President is independent or not, he or she is, because they have executive authority—should have open-ended and unlimited tenure at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day. To my reading of the proposal, that appears to be the case.As we know, the tenure of parliamentarians is restricted by the process of regular elections which are set out in law. We know the tenure of the judiciary is restricted by age. There are very few situations where tenure is not properly confined and expressed. It is my view that it would not diminish the office or in any way harm the concept of a President—in fact, it would improve it—if their term were limited. However, this is not a recommendation from the Constitutional Convention. I do not think it is a recommendation from the committee. I merely express this as something about which we should be concerned as yet another flaw in this model.16:12:007298Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this. It was not something which came from the convention model, as Senator Murray has mentioned. Furthermore, it was not a matter that the joint com mittee raised in its recommendations either. It is a situation where a President would have his or her term limited to two such terms. I do not believe they need be consequential; they just have to be two terms in total. The government's view is that this could prevent a very popular President from commencing a third term, and that option should be available. It could also prevent a removed President being chosen again as President if that President had exceeded the limit concerned. It basically limits the flexibility of this. Flexibility is something that was commented on by the joint committee. I do not think there is anything to be had by limiting the terms of a President.16:13:007298Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It is quite the contrary; it increases the flexibility for the people of Australia. If we cannot provide a different President every 10 years out of the 18 million to 30 million Australians in the next 30 to 50 years, we are something short of flexible. I agree with this amendment. I think 10 years as a term for a President is a maximum. I am also very well aware of the way in which these terms can be potentially altered so that a real limitation is put on the turnover and the variety of presidents and on the input of the Australian people. The fact that this has not come through the Constitutional Convention should not worry the government. It has not found itself restricted in this legislation by recommendations from the Constitutional Convention or anybody else. It has taken it as a guide, and that is it. The fact that Senator Murray has come in with an extremely good suggestion should not discount it from being taken up. It is a good suggestion, and I support it.16:15:007298Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition does not support this amendment, essentially for the same reasons as the government. It has not been part of the process that has been recommended through the ConCon or through the committee and we do not know whether it is going to be an issue at the end of the day—that is, as to whether a President will be seeking a third term. As the minister says, I am sure they will not be, but we do not see a need to amend the legislation in the way suggested by Senator Murray.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Murray be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.16:15:007299Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition will not be proceeding with its amendment No. 3 relating to schedule 1, item 3. The government will oppose it and we do not think it is going to add all that much to the legislation. As a consequence, it presents an irritant rather than a matter of principle. As an irritant, we are not going to proceed with it.16:16:007299Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In view of what has gone on before, I withdraw amendment No. 6 on sheet 1472 revised.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, are you proceeding with your amendment?16:16:007299Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Yes, I am. I move Greens amendment No. 3 on sheet 1480:(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 30), at the end of the second paragraph of section 61, add "or until the expiration of thirty days after the end of the term, whichever first occurs".This amendment is to ensure that a limit is put on the term of office. It is self-explanatory and again it is a clarification of the issue of turnover of presidents.16:17:007299Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports this amendment. It adds a little bit to the machinery. Once again, it is not a matter of principle but one that makes it clear that action has to be taken before the term of the President is up so that following arrangements can be made. Thirty days is a fair period.16:17:007299Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting the amendment before us to impose a time limit of 30 days on the end of the term of a President where a replacement has not been appointed. As Senator Bolkus indicated, this has been a topic of discussion and investigation by the committee. It follows the advice given by some distinguished witnesses before the committee, such as Professor George Winterton and Dr John Hirst and also my distinguished colleague, Senator Andrew Murray, in his submission to the joint select committee. We recognise that this amendment would substantially have the same effect as those that were going to be moved—but have been withdrawn—that would delay the vacating of the office by 30 days. To the extent that it is an incentive to future governments to set the nomination and appointment process in train early, we will be supporting the amendment.16:18:007299Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I just want to briefly record that I think this is a well-conceived amendment and I support it.16:18:007299Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this amendment and does so for a number of reasons. Firstly, this is a matter of detail not specifically addressed by the convention model. It is something which is perhaps best left out in such a thing as a constitution because it adds detail which complicates matters. Page 38 of the report of the joint committee—and we are talking about how the term of office of the President ends—states:The Committee therefore agrees that there should be a mechanism to ensure that there is an occupant of the office if the nomination and appointment process has not been finalised before the end of the incumbent's term. The Committee recognises that this objective could be achieved in a number of ways, including by permitting an outgoing President to continue in office until the next President is chosen. However, the Committee takes the view that this is not the best option. Rather it would be preferable if a President's term of office were to end after five years, at which time the office would fall vacant.The government's view is that the committee did canvass, as an alternative, the continuation of the incumbent until the replacement by the incoming President. On balance, it opted to fix the term at five years, saying that the office would fall vacant. It is preferable, the government believes, that that not be adopted. Under the proposed changes, a new President could be chosen in advance of the end of the incumbent's term so as to allow a seamless transition. The process might, for one reason or another, be delayed. You would then have the situation where there is a finite term for the incumbent and you find yourself having the incumbent's term expiring whilst the incoming President has not yet been installed.I think it is important that there be allowance for the incumbent to continue as it reflects the realities of the appointment process. I am not saying that that would be a regular occurrence, but you do have to cater for these situations and that is what you do in constitutions. I think the government's proposal that there be this seamless transition is reasonable. If this amendment were passed, it could truncate that seamless transition.16:21:007300Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats for their support on this. I think it will actually encourage the seamless transition that the government is concerned to ensure and it will discourage a government which has not got on with the business of moving to the appointment of a new President at the expiry of a term of presidency. Again, it just clarifies the issue and prevents a government from allowing a presidency to continue way beyond the five years without any definite limitation. It is a good amendment and I am glad that it has the support of the other two parties on this side of the House. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.16:26:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Faulkner, J. P. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.30Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Collins, J. M. A. Ferguson, A. B.Evans, C. V. Macdonald, I.Forshaw, M. G. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Campbell, I. G.McLucas, J. E. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.16:30:007300Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move amendment No. 7 on sheet 1472 revised:(7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 31), omit the paragraph, substitute: A person may not serve more than two terms as President.I will be brief with this. We have already had the discussion about tenure. This amendment limits the tenure of the President to two terms as President. You have to take a philosophical view in these matters as to whether you believe section 61 should allow, as it does at present, an open-ended tenure or whether you believe a limited tenure is appropriate.All of us who have read a bit of history know the difficulty of prying out of jobs people who may have become a bit aged, infirm or incapacitated in some way. In those circumstances the Prime Minister would be obliged to eventually decide to dismiss somebody. It is far better from a practical point of view to have limited tenure so that those kinds of eventualities do not arise. I add those remarks to my earlier remarks as to the desirability of limiting the tenure of anyone who has an executive role and the kinds of powers—as limited as they are—the President may enjoy.16:32:007301Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition opposes this amendment. Much of the debate over recent days has been about how easy it will be to get rid of a President; now we have the reverse from Senator Murray. He is now concerned that the President may be appointed for more than two terms. We do not think it is going to happen, but we also do not recognise the need to amend this legislation to ensure that it does not happen. It is something that did not come up at the Constitutional Convention nor was it a matter of major concern for the joint parliamentary committee. It is one of these issues which, I suppose, if the government were inclined to pick up would be a matter that you could incorporate in legislation, but it is more of a superfluous type of irritant and we do not see a need to support it.16:33:007301Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Similarly, on behalf of the Democrats, I will be supporting the findings of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum on this issue. I certainly appreciate the evidence given to that committee outlining concerns on this matter from individuals such as Mr George Williams. The nomination process is in many ways an adequate safeguard against some of the concerns that have been raised. For a President to serve successive terms he or she would have to undergo the same nomination processes with all the other prospective candidates. As such, he or she would be considered for nomination against the new publicly nominated candidates and would then have to secure the support of the Leader of the Opposition and two-thirds of a joint sitting of the federal parliament.If the President had come to be closely associated with the government of the day and was therefore considered no longer neutral, it is unlikely that he or she would secure the opposition's support, for a start. The Democrats consider it unlikely that the nomination process would re-nominate a President for a second term let alone for a third or fourth or indefinite period. Therefore, I suggest that this amendment is not a necessary amendment and that it is perhaps an unnecessary fetter on the nomination process and the safeguards contained therein.16:34:007301Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to raise another issue here. This is a concept that runs through the American Constitution. It was brought in after President Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times. Up until that time the people had followed the precedent set by President Washington of filling the office for two terms only, that is, for two four-year terms. Senator Murray's amendment is reflecting that. One of the reasons for opposing this is that the President who will be appointed under this system will be quite different from the President who is elected under the American system. There the President has executive powers—is the executive—whereas here the President is to be a symbolic head.Senator Murray interjecting—SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—He will not have the executive power that resides in the Prime Minister, and that is the point. Under our system it is the Prime Minister who has the executive power that the President has in the United States. If the President is to have some executive powers, reserve powers, that is good, but he will not have the extent of the powers that the American President has, nor the full range of those powers, and will not be able to exercise those powers in the way that the American President can. It is important that, even though we are using the title President, everybody understands that the President we talk about here is entirely—I use the word advisedly—different from the President that occupies the White House in Washington. It is important to keep that distinction alive.16:37:007302Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Once again I find myself agreeing with Senator Murray. The Greens worldwide have had long debates about rotation, that is, limitation of the terms of elected representatives. At one stage in Germany they closed it down to a two-year term. They found that was not such a wise idea because it did not give the incumbents time to really get used to office before they were facing the door out. That, of course, is a limitation that is too extreme. To use in reverse the argument that Senator Cooney has just been putting, the Americans with an elected President moved to change their constitution to limit the elected President to two terms. Here we have got a non-elected President, because the direct election option is not being given to the people of Australia, and we are saying that we should not limit that to two terms. I do not go along with that. I think that Presidents will certainly have varying degrees of popularity and some of them are going to be extremely popular, but that is not to say that at any given time in this nation there will not be a range of other extraordinarily accomplished and potentially very popular people as well.I think the office of President is going to be one that will be greatly honoured by its incumbents and I think it is in the interests of the nation that at least every 10 years we allow another citizen to take that high office. To not do so is to move in the direction of stultification. By the way, as with the United States, those Presidents who have served their five- or 10-year term in office are going to be part of the group of elder statespeople, if you like, of the nation. They will continue to have their influence and they will continue to be honoured. But I think the moving aside once a decade for a new face is an extremely healthy thing, and I support this amendment.16:39:007302Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this amendment on grounds previously outlined. I would agree with the comments made by Senators Bolkus and Cooney. I might point out that the committee in its report at page 37 stated:The Committee accepts that there are good policy reasons for permitting a person to serve more than one term as President. It also notes that the process set out in the Republic Bill for the selection and appointment of the President involves a number of steps and requires input from a number of persons and bodies. It therefore considers that, in order to ensure that the best candidate is ultimately appointed, the process should incorporate maximum flexibility.What we have here is a situation where the President serves a term and would then have to be reappointed through the appointment process. That is a safeguard against any situation where there might be just a rubber-stamping of the return of the President. That President would have to go through a process and would succeed only if he or she had bipartisan support. Leaving it open-ended does not pose any risk, because of that requirement of appointment at the conclusion of each term.Furthermore, the question of flexibility arises, and this does allow flexibility. It does not say that after a period of time you are not eligible to return to office or to run again for that office. If the people want you, they can have you. A comparison to the United States President I do not think is really appropriate, because we are dealing with two very different creatures, if you like. The President who is being envisaged for Australia is not one who has the same powers or manner of election as the President of the United States. They are very different roles indeed. This is a role for Australia where the people of Australia might want to have someone there for three terms. If they do not, that person would not be reappointed. The community opinion would be gauged by the Prime Minister of the day and the Leader of the Opposition. For those reasons, the government opposes this amendment.16:42:007302Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The people of Australia are not empowered to vote for the President. Let us get this straight. We are here dealing with a system where the ultimate appointment is by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; it is a political appointment. The big parties might live to rue the day they turned down this sensible amendment. After two terms, if they want to change the President and do not select a renominating President, it is going to be seen as a political act extraordinaire to remove the President, effectively, and put someone else in place. I would have thought that this is a very sensible move. I do not think it has been well thought out by the big parties. I think it is in their interests.The last argument that can be resorted to here is that the Australian people will at some stage or other want to have the President kept in office because she or he is popular. I reiterate that that is not going to be their prerogative. That option is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a system where ultimately the Prime Minister puts forward the nomination and has to get the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition. I think under those circumstances it is even more important that we have some end of tenure so that there is a smooth and politics minimised—it cannot ever be politics free—turnover of Presidents at least once a decade. I put it to both the Labor Party and the coalition that they should reconsider.Amendment not agreed to.16:43:007303Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Opposition amendment No. 4 is actually in the same category as the previous amendment. It is one that we would have liked to have seen accepted by the government. It does not really add a great deal. It adds the words `as soon as practicable after the removal but in any event not later than 30 days'. At the moment there is a requirement that there has to be report back to parliament no later than 30 days. We thought it was important to try and make that as soon as practicable after the removal and not have the Prime Minister or the government wait for 30 days. However, it would seem as if the government is not prepared to pick this amendment up, and as a consequence we do not see any real value in pursuing it. As I say, it fits in the category of a minor amendment and not one that really affects the structure of things in a great way.16:44:007303Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(R2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 4 to 16), omit section 62, substitute:62 Removal of President The Prime Minister may, by instrument signed by the Prime Minister, remove the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, with effect immediately. A Prime Minister who removes a President must, within thirty days after the removal, seek the approval for the removal of the President of two-thirds of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives in a joint sitting, unless: (i) within that period, the House of Representatives expires or is dissolved; or (ii) before the removal, the House of Representatives had expired or been dissolved, but a general election of members of that House had not taken place. The failure of a two-thirds majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President does not operate to reinstate the President who was removed.It gives me great pleasure to move this amendment on behalf of the Australian Democrats. That is because we believe it seeks to restore the Senate to its rightful role in the dismissal process and to give protection to the President in an Australian republic.The amendment before the chamber offers similar protection to a President as is currently afforded federal judges under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. The President of an Australian republic would otherwise be placed in the invidious position of being able to be dismissed by the Prime Minister without a stated cause. Much was made of this issue at the 1998 Constitutional Convention—as I said in my address to the Senate last night—and of the need to balance the powers of the Prime Minister and the President. The Democrats have concluded that the power is very much weighted in favour of the Prime Minister. It is not only our opposition that supports this analysis, it is the view of a number of prominent witnesses before the select committee; that is, the balance is tipped too far in favour of the Prime Minister, potentially undermining and undervaluing the role of an Australian President.The Democrats are conscious of the safeguards that are in this model which the committee sought to strengthen in some ways. But we do not believe that the requirement, that a Prime Minister who dismisses the President must seek the ratification of a majority of the House of Representatives within 30 days, is an adequate protection against a politically motivated or peremptory dismissal. It would be highly unlikely—and I would be very surprised if anyone in this chamber would suggest this—that a Prime Minister of the day could not command a majority vote in the House of Representatives. The Democrats believe that the lower house alone would merely act as a rubber stamp to the actions of the Prime Minister of the day.So we think it is appropriate that the Senate be included in this process of ratification. That is a view which we have held for a long time. That is a view which we sought to have incorporated into this original model during the Constitutional Convention proceedings. Obviously, we were not successful. We recognise that the intent of these bills is to reflect as much as possible the communique, the outcome and the model that was voted on at the Constitutional Convention and so we acknowledge that this is a diversion from the model. But we think it is an appropriate diversion.We are aware of comments from witnesses who gave evidence to the select committee that, in fact, they think perhaps a minority of delegates at the Constitutional Convention—this is perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, and I do not know if it is a bit presumptuous—would these days support a role for the Senate in that dismissal process. So we view that divergence—or diversion, if you like—as disappointing and unfortunate but we do believe that this model has undermined the role of the Senate as an equally representative and sovereign house of the parliament. We also believe that this undermines the security of the tenure enjoyed by a President. We are very keen, through this amendment, not only to elevate the Senate to its rightful place but to ensure a degree of protection and security for an Australian President.As I have mentioned previously, we also seek to ensure that grounds for dismissal—that is, that a President can only be dismissed for proven incapacity or misbehaviour—be incorporated into this legislation, as well as the support of a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the federal parliament. We believe, and I have stated this a number of times in the last couple of days, that the Australian President will be a unique figure, a symbolic head of state—a constitutional empire—and that we should not seek to undermine or undervalue in any way these important qualities.If the Senate is left out of the dismissal process, we would be doing that. Similarly, if we fail to give appropriate constitutional protection to an Australian head of state or afford the security that we give to, say, Federal Court judges, the importance of that office will be underestimated and potentially undervalued. So we think there are natural justice principles as well as other important principles in relation to democracy and the role of the two houses of parliament. That is what we seek to do through the Democrat amendment to this legislation. I do hope, especially because we are debating this in the Senate chamber, that government and opposition senators will respect their office—and the chamber in which we all work and legislate—and consider supporting the Democrats in this endeavour.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—I would just clarify, Senator, that you have moved amendment No. 2 on revised sheet 1474. Is that correct?3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Yes.16:50:007304Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition opposes this amendment. This issue was deliberated upon at length at the Constitutional Convention last year and was canvassed by the joint parliamentary committee as well. It is obvious that a different form of dismissal was embraced by both those forums and it is that form of dismissal that the opposition also supports here today.The proposal put up by the Democrats once again gives us the gridlock situation. It means a substantial shift in the balance of power from where it is now and basically has deep-seated implications for our constitutional system. Basically, the Democrats would like the approval of a two-thirds majority, not just of the House of Representatives; they want a joint sitting. They want to ensure that the Senate has power in the process as well. That does, in a sense, provide for the buttressing of a President who may be keen to take on a Prime Minister and a government. But you just cannot read this amendment on sheet 1474 in isolation from the rest of the Australian Constitution to which the words of this amendment are sought to be added.Basically, under the Constitution, we have the powers of the current Governor-General, reserve powers and the like, and in a sense those powers would also be buttressed by the impact of this particular amendment. As the Constitutional Convention did, we see this sort of proposal as leading very quickly to a substantial shift in the power balance. Like the ConCon and the government, the opposition is keen to ensure that we do not move from a position of a ceremonial head of state—President or Governor-General—to a situation where the President might have powers buttressed by a Senate which is more keen to cause political havoc than it is interested in the ordinary affairs and transitions of government. We oppose this amendment and, unfortunately, we cannot support you at this time, Senator Stott Despoja.16:53:007305Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—There are three similar amendments here. There is the Democrat one that Senator Stott Despoja is putting forward, there is an amendment from Senator Murray and then there is the Australian Greens amendment, which I have put forward. All of them involve the Senate in the dismissal process. So it should be. The Senate is involved in the appointment of the President through the requirement for a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both houses. The Senate should be involved in a dismissal, should that unhappy event come to reality.Cloaked in what we are hearing yet again from the government and the opposition is the wish to concentrate powers ostensibly in the representatives, but that sheets it right home to power, in particular, in the office of the Prime Minister and in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. They already have an extraordinarily powerful position in the process of appointment of the President. I think it is extraordinarily important that there be a whole-of-parliament approach to the dismissal of the President. I will support each of these proposals, but it worries me greatly that the Labor Party is not going to.I think the people of Australia would want us to support it as well, just as the people of Australia support very strongly the retention of the Senate and the powers of the Senate. I cannot help but think that the big parties are very happy to have the Senate involved in the two-thirds vote for the appointment of a President because it gives some validity to the naked reality—which is that, in the main, it is going to be left to the offices of Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to make that appointment.When it gets to the dis-appointment of the President—the dismissal of the President—they do not need that cloak of respectability of involving the Senate anymore, so the process is to knock it out. Senator Stott Despoja is right. The Senate should be involved in both the appointment and a dismissal if it occurs. One of these three formulas should be used. They involve either a joint sitting with a two-thirds majority, as in Senator Stott Despoja's amendment, which is the same as the appointment process, or the houses separately coming to the conclusion that, due to misbehaviour or incapacity, a President ought to be removed from office.Unfortunately, there is the need for a dismissal process. There is not the need for the power to be concentrated at that time in the hands of the two offices of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I support this motion. If this fails, I will be supporting the one from Senator Murray and, if that does not succeed, I will, of course, be supporting my own motion on behalf of the Australian Greens.I also say to the opposition and to the pro-republican members of the coalition that, by not adopting one of these alternatives which involves the two houses of parliament approv ing the dismissal of a President, you will make the campaign that much more vulnerable. This is its most vulnerable point. The Prime Minister made that clear the other night. He is already onto it. He made a road with potholes in it and his job now, as a monarchist and an opponent of this nation becoming a republic, is to try and make those potholes appear as deep as possible. I have criticised him before for his role in the process.I say to the Labor opposition that this is the biggest pothole of the lot. If the campaign were not to succeed because of concentration on this dismissal process, be that on your heads. I think you are wrong. The Senate should be involved if Australia finds itself in the terrible situation of having to dismiss a President. It is as simple as that.16:58:007306Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I understand what Senator Brown is saying. He is saying that, as the debate about the republic is presently situated, what is in this amendment is something that the Australian people would find attractive. However, when we are arguing the issue of the constitutional framework in which the country is going to go ahead, we really have to look at what is going to give good government that will be properly scrutinised and kept in check by a parliament. As Senator Stott Despoja said, this President is a symbolic figure with, as Senator Murray said, some—but really very little—executive powers. It is a model that is quite distinct from the situation in the United States of America. This particular amendment is based on the concept that the President-to-be in Australia would be like an American President. It would not.Senator Stott Despoja said that we have provisions to protect judges. But that is a different issue, because judges are people who make decisions which have far-reaching consequences for governments and other people who come before them. They must have tenure of position because they are making decisions which clearly are going to be unpopular—at least with one side—and they are going to make decisions between states, between the Commonwealth and the states and between other people. It is funda mental to the proper democratic functions of government that judges be secure.To use Senator Stott Despoja's words, a symbolic figure is not in that position; a symbolic figure is there to personify the good things about the country. The executive power, whether we like it or not, is with the Prime Minister. Yet the argument goes forward on the basis that somehow that is wrong—it is all right for a President to have executive powers but not for a Prime Minister. That really is an argument to change the whole system of government under which we now operate—to change what is called the Westminster system into the system that operates in America. And we cannot have that concept going around without a lot more debate than we presently have had.We argue about the effect of what is called the lack of security for the President, but it has to be looked at in the general framework of the balancing of powers. Under section 59 of this bill, the President has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, which was done in 1975 and caused at that time all sorts of consequences and all sorts of problems. So we must decide as a nation where we are going to repose our power. The United States says it should be with the President; we say it should be with the Prime Minister, subject to all the consequences. The Prime Minister will be appointed or otherwise, depending upon the numbers in the House of Representatives. That is a matter of reality.If we raise the status of the President above what will give a proper balancing of powers within the community then we have some trouble. That point has been made again and again. I speak now in respect of the amendment put forward by Senator Stott Despoja. Why go through all that trouble, when this appears in the amendment, at least on the sheet that I have? It finishes off:The failure of a two-thirds majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President does not operate to reinstate the President who was removed.So we go through all this crisis for no outcome of any consequence. If the Prime Minister seeks to dismiss the President under the scheme put forward here by Senator Stott Despoja, what is to stop the Senate and the House of Representatives talking about that and criticising the government about that as it is? So to a certain extent this amendment attacks a straw figure—raises an issue which seems to give the House of Representatives and the Senate power but in the end does not, because the amendment finishes up by saying that the failure of the two-thirds majority to come to a conclusion that the Prime Minister is wrong does not in any way negative what he in fact has done.17:03:007307Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Many people think that the fate of this referendum will rest on the question. I personally think that the fate of the referendum will also rest on the failure of the Labor Party to accept one of these three amendments: that put by Senator Stott Despoja on behalf of the Democrats, which I fully endorse and support; that put as a variant on that by me; or that put by Senator Brown. I say that because there are three main groups of people opposed to this referendum question: the first group are monarchists, the second are direct electionists, and the third are those republicans who will support an appointed model but find this model fatally flawed.Right at the heart of the fatal flaw is this issue that unfair dismissal is possible for the President—that there is no role for the Senate in that matter. Right at the heart of Senator Cooney's response is this very dangerous and scary scenario whereby we are attempting to move to reinforce an elective dictatorship. The separation of powers concept requires that the President or the Governor-General be as independent as they can be from the executive. If you put the President into the status of a junior minister, subject to unfair dismissal, it is the Prime Minister in this country who has supreme and absolute power. And that is not a wise thing.The Americans understood this problem and they took the President out of the parliament. The parliament is distinct and separate from the executive—and should be. The British—they are a cunning lot, the British—had the Crown, which was distinct and outside of parliament, so the Crown devised matters so that elected representatives would have allegiance to the Crown, but always at least there was sufficient separation of powers to protect the people from an over-mighty executive. That is the thing that direct electionists fear more than anything. That is a thing which monarchists fear—an over-mighty executive. And when you allow this Constitutional Convention model to go through you are giving greater and greater power to the Prime Minister, whoever the Prime Minister might be in the future—and none of us in this place can foresee that.That is why I say that this question lies at the heart of the possible failure of this referendum and the very real gamble the Labor Party is taking on this matter. If it were not for this dismissal issue, supporters of the appointed model who find the model fatally flawed might be with you and might get it over the line. When the Leader of the Labor Party, the very experienced Kim Beazley—from my state of Western Australia—puts his weight and authority behind this, if this referendum goes down I think it will cause some difficulties for the Labor Party.In my judgment, this decision is a very material one. People try to tell us, `This is merely replacing the existing system.' It does not, because at the moment there is a third party involved in the dismissal of the Governor-General, and that is the Crown. There has never been a dismissal of a Governor-General, so we do not know how the Crown would behave in that instance. We can take a very informed and intelligent view based on likely precedent, but we do not actually know. Conceive a position where 49 per cent of the House of Representatives petitioned the Crown not to accept the removal of a Governor-General because it was done wrongly by an overmighty Prime Minister. Conceive the same position whereby maybe two-thirds of the Senate also petitioned the Crown on the same basis. I could not imagine that the Crown would not hesitate over accepting the advice of an overmighty Prime Minister to dismiss the Governor-General.It is that sense of uncertainty, that sense that the Crown is ultimately there as a protec tive mechanism for our constitutional system, which has helped give us stability and certainty over 100 years of Australian nationhood. That is why the monarchists support it. That is why the direct electionists have common cause with the monarchists. They want that protection. This model takes away that protection, and it is a fearful thing. That is why somebody like me, if these amendments go down, will oppose the referendum.I cannot support enough the concepts here. Section 62 creates an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister. There are no stated grounds for dismissal and no mandatory parliamentary oversight. Look at the protection that Senator Stott Despoja's amendment provides. Firstly, the removal of the President is determined on known grounds which are used constitutionally with respect to the judiciary. Secondly, the Senate is involved, and we have used the same mechanism of the joint sitting.The other points have been well made by previous speakers. If the parliament is to be good enough to appoint the President, the parliament is good enough to oversee the dismissal. The parliament is the representative of the people, not the executive. I cannot stress strongly enough that I think this is the watershed moment for this bill and the prospects of the referendum going up or down. That is why, Senator Cooney, the government will oppose this amendment. They know that this is the linchpin which will guarantee the referendum failing.17:11:007308Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—Thank you for that, Senator Murray. You say at the moment there is a separation of power. If you read the Constitution in terms of its black-letter law, that is hardly the situation. Section 1 of chapter I of the Constitution states:The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth."Section 61 of chapter 2 states:The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.The Constitution says that the Queen is part of parliament. So she has legislative power to that extent. She also has full executive power under section 61. They are the terms of the Constitution.If you look at it in those terms, you could hardly say that that mixture of powers, which has operated over the last hundred years, has brought about dictatorship. But what is going to happen under the new regime is that the Governor-General, as he is now, who would become President and take over the functions, is going to have a much sturdier base on which to stand because of the way he is to be elected. I say that because section 2 of the Constitution reads:A Governor-General appointed by the Queen—who, as I said, has a legislative and executive function—shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.She has power both legislatively and executively. The Governor-General can be dismissed at the Queen's pleasure. She has to act, as I understand the constitutional position, on the advice of the government of the day. You talk about dictatorship of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is in effect elected by a majority of the House of Representatives and represents the House of Representatives. Who elects the members of the House of Representatives? The people who elect the members of the House of Representatives are the people of Australia.Every three years the Prime Minister is subject to that sort of check. When you look at the Constitution and the way it is spelt out at the moment it is not right to say that the way we are going is much less democratic. It is much more democratic. It might not be democratic enough. I can understand someone saying, `You have not gone far enough,' but the position of the President, as he or she will become, will be more secure under the new scheme than the old.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—That is rubbish.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator Murray, can you explain to me what sections 1, 2 and 61 of the Constitution mean if they do not mean that there is a very strong connection in the Constitution between the executive power and the legislative power of the Commonwealth vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General? What else does that mean? If you say it is rubbish, you tell me what that means in terms of the debates that were held during the 1890s.17:16:007309Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I will respond to Senator Cooney's question. Senator Cooney would know, because of the warmth of our relationship, that the shouting of `That is rubbish' was not aggressively intended.I will simply encapsulate it in this manner. The proposal says that the Prime Minister can dismiss the President out of hand, immediately. He will give that President a letter and at that instant that person is dismissed. It is an immediate, one-to-one transaction. Of course, I understand what the Constitution says about the present relationships between the various sectors of the executive, but right now if the Prime Minister attempted to dismiss Governor-General William Deane he would have to ask the Queen of Australia's permission. There is no `instant' about it. She could take a day, a week, a month, a year. There is no time frame in the Constitution which specifies that she must act immediately. We have no knowledge, no experience, no precedent of how the Crown would react if there was a hotly disputed dismissal.I accept absolutely, Senator Cooney, that if the Prime Minister said, `This particular Governor-General unfortunately has a terminal illness which has affected their capacity to perform the job. They will not go. I must dismiss him or her,' the Crown would no doubt be extremely helpful in resolving the matter. But we have no precedent or understanding of how it would be dealt with if it was hotly disputed. The particular point is that there is no immediacy about it.That is what the Labor Party fears. That time delay was what enabled the Governor-General to dismiss a Prime Minister. That is as it should be because a dismissed Prime Minister can go back to the people but a dismissed Governor-General or President cannot. That is the simple answer. That is why I responded in the way I did. I am sorry if it was slightly offensive. It was not intended so.17:18:007309Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—No offence was taken, Senator Murray. People have been trying to struggle through this. No matter what position you take in this debate, everyone seems to have agreed that the Prime Minister is going to be the head of the executive. This particular amendment continues the position of 1975 whereby the Prime Minister can be dismissed by the President, as he or she will be. In my view, that is one of the great issues in Australian history. Those of us who were there at the time still suffer some shock from what happened in that period—or at least I do.Instead of concentrating on the elected government, people are talking about a symbolic figure—namely, the Governor-General, as he is now, or the President, as he or she is to become. To me, it is a topsy turvy argument. It is all right to dismiss an elected government, but it is not all right to subject a Governor-General or a President to any force because he or she cannot be re-elected. He or she can be appointed again—there is no doubt about that.The whole argument seems to be that the elected parliament, the government and the Prime Minister have a taint of evil about them and are not competent or able to carry out the duties they should, whereas the President will, by taking on that office, be sanctified in some way and therefore worthier and carry more weight, even though he or she is only a symbolic figure, than the executive which we hope will run this country.In 1975 Australia was in near chaos. It was the steadiness of the people of Australia and the steadiness of the government that kept us going. To now say that somehow a symbolic figure, the President, with very limited executive power, should be elevated above the system and that what we are proposing to do here will make us closer to a dictatorship than under the present Constitution is not right. Senator Murray, you have put forward some powerful arguments, as you always do. I simply say that I do not think those arguments, if acted upon, would get the result we wanted.17:22:007310Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I do not intend to speak for long. We are under time constraints. As I understand it, we need to get this measure through this chamber by 7.20 this evening so that the matter can be dealt with by the House of Representatives. Of course the time frame is governed by the proposed date of the referendum. So it is not my intention to speak for very long. I just want to put forward arguments that have already been put forward against the very great power the Prime Minister has in this particular area of the dismissal of the President.There are a couple of things that need to be said, however. Senator Cooney mentioned the symbolic office of President. Yes, it is symbolic but the President also has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. I think the situation was outlined very cogently by Senator Murray whereby under the current Constitution the Governor-General would have a window of opportunity to dismiss the Prime Minister. Again, the Prime Minister could appeal to the people, as was stated by Senator Murray, whereas the new President could not if the legislation is put forward unamended.I think this is a very important issue to a lot of people. I do appeal to the Senate to ensure that the Senate has its rightful place. After all, the appointment of the President is not by the Prime Minister; the appointment of the President is by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament sitting together. If that is a method of appointment, why is that not also the method of dismissal? Furthermore, should we remove the Senate, the second chamber, from this process all together? The second chamber is a house of review, but it is also the chamber where the interests of the state are protected and promoted. Isn't it interesting that under the referendum legislation a referendum can only be passed if a majority of people vote for the question in a majority of the states? Yet when you come to the question of the dismissal of the President the second chamber of parliament has no role at all. I do not think that is going to go down too well in places like Tasmania, for example.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Or South Australia.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Or South Australia, as indicated by Senator Stott Despoja. There are quite a number of people who have for some reason or another asked me how I will vote in the referendum. I am sorry that I did not speak on the second reading of this legislation. I thought that speeches on the second reading were going to continue to take place this morning. Unfortunately, I was not able to speak on the second reading. There are a number of issues I would have liked to canvass, including the question of sovereignty—the sovereign states or Australia as a sovereign state, a sovereign nation. In whom is that sovereignty vested? There are a number of other major issues that I would have liked to canvass.I want to make it very clear that I am a supporter of Australia having its own head of state in the nature of a President. Therefore, I am a republican—I am a supporter of a republic. Yet this measure will be defective. Whether it will be so seriously defective as to influence voters in their choice when they come to vote in the referendum I do not know. I hope not. But at least I would appeal to this chamber to consider this matter very carefully indeed. I know you have, but you need to ask yourselves the question: is it appropriate to remove this chamber altogether from the process of dismissal when it has a clear mandate in the legislation to be involved in the appointment procedures? I offer that for what it is worth. I will not continue at great length because it looks as though things are a fait accompli, but I do appeal to those on the government side and those on the opposition side to give consideration to this.17:30:007310Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Harradine has been reiterating quite clearly the point of view that the Greens and the Democrats are taking here. This is a sidelining of the Senate by the big parties. Senator Cooney said a little earlier that, in effect, the presidency would be largely ceremonial. But behind this—the big parties getting together to block the Senate from being involved in the dismissal of a President—is the theory that, in some way or other, a President who is under some sort of suspicion or who is facing potential dismissal or real dismissal by a Prime Minister is going to go to the Senate to try to have that decision by the Prime Minister overruled. You cannot have it both ways, Senator Cooney. You cannot say, on the one hand, that this is a ceremonial post, in which case that would not matter, and, on the other hand, that the Senate ought not be involved because it can in some way or other thwart the wishes of the Prime Minister.Both houses of parliament are involved in the appointment of the President. Both houses of parliament ought to be involved in the dismissal of the President. This makes the positive outcome of this referendum most vulnerable. The Labor Party will be responsible if it goes down, because of the argument that will be raised on this very point. I have told Mr Turnbull of the Republican Movement in no uncertain terms that his movement, the ARM, should be behind these amendments, because this does make the yes case vulnerable. But there has been an apparent failure there; there has certainly been no public support coming from the ARM on this.I have made it clear, moreover—I share the home state of Tasmania with Senator Harradine—that the Greens will be pivotal in the campaign down there, not least Christine Milne, former leader of the Greens in the parliament, who was a delegate to the convention. I said, `Mr Turnbull, if you want the Greens to be in full flight in support of this positive outcome in the pivotal state of Tasmania, remembering that you do require a majority of votes in a majority of states, then make sure that the Senate is involved in the dismissal process as well as the appointment process.' I have not heard a word since then. I might add that we are going to shortly get to the need for a consequent convention, with the people involved, and I hope that we will be getting more support there from the Labor Party.The Labor Party are making a big mistake in not supporting any of the options which would involve the Senate as a safeguard in a process of dismissal of the President by a Prime Minister. It is the major mistake that the Labor Party are making in this process, and they cannot escape responsibility. If they were to support this and, indeed, if the Australian Republican Movement, the ARM, were doing its job on this, we would be getting a different result here and we would be much more assured of a positive result on 6 November. It is a real lapse by the Labor Party. I cannot help thinking that it is because of this feeling that the Senate ought to be sidelined. That is not what the people of Australia think.It is all the more important that the Senate be involved here, because the option of an elected President is not on the table. We are talking about an appointed President, appointed by the two big political parties, by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, then getting the stamp of approval from a two-thirds majority of both houses. When the reverse process occurs—and that is when you have a crisis in politics—it is all the more important that the two houses of parliament are then involved. That is why the Greens have put up the option of having a majority of each house of parliament. It is in the Constitution, it has been there for 100 years—fortunately it has never had to be used—in the case of High Court judges misbehaving or being incapacitated. It should be the same for a future President. It is a necessary, commonsense safeguard and it ought to be supported.17:35:007311Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I wish to respond to some of the comments made about the amendment that I have moved. Firstly, I will not be holding only the Labor Party to account on this matter; I do not think the Labor Party is the only party culpable in this chamber. Clearly, the government—both the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party—had the opportunity to show their support for the houses of parliament by supporting the amendments before us.I think it is important to put on the record that this is a changed position from at least one political party in this chamber, that in fact the previous models advocated by the Australian Republican Movement and the Republic Advisory Committee, which was established under the Keating government, allowed for the inclusion of the Senate in the dismissal process. So this is actually a changed position. At the Constitutional Convention I moved comparable amendments to these to include the Senate in the dismissal process; I was not successful. The numbers in the Senate and the indications from party representatives today suggest that again I will not be successful.This represents a changed position from not only the ALP but also one of our foremost republican advocacy groups, the Republican Movement. That saddens me, because I am a patron of the South Australian Republican Movement, but they are aware of my differing views on this issue.To respond belatedly to Senator Cooney on a couple of points, I agree with him on one point. I cannot argue for the superiority of the current system, perhaps unlike my colleague. I am not going to defend the status quo—I do not wish to. I think the model being proposed and some of the safeguards incorporated into this legislation in relation to the dismissal process are an improvement on the current system. For that reason, as many people know, I will be supporting this referendum. But I do not like supporting legislation that has some defects and that is flawed. Here is a perfect opportunity, with the amendments I move on behalf of my party today, to rectify that particular problem.In relation to Senator Cooney's comments on the Australian head of state being symbolic, I am aware that I used that word, but I have also pointed out repeatedly that an Australian head of state under an Australian republic would be in a unique position of power. Not only would they perform the role of a symbolic and constitutional head of state but they would also be a constitutional umpire. That has been pointed out by Senator Murray, Senator Brown and Senator Harradine.That brings me to the other part contained in these amendments on the issue of security of tenure and on the rights as well as the responsibilities of the President. We support the comments made by committee witnesses such as Mr Williams regarding the impact that uncertain tenure would have on the independence and the status of the President. We know the evidence presented to the committee strongly argued that the independence and status of judges, for example, had evolved from their security of tenure. That is why the Australian Democrats are equally anxious that the independence and the status of an Australian head of state be fostered and protected as much as possible. There are worthy comparisons between the role of judges as legal and judicial umpires, if you like, and that of an Australian head of state.I come to Senator Cooney's last point—a good point—in his first contribution in this debate. Senator Cooney, I hope I do not misrepresent you on this. You looked at the amendments and noted that a vote by that total number of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to approve the removal would not reinstate the President. You would be aware, I hope, that this simply reflects the current provisions of the proposal. That wording is the same wording used in the proposal before us, which is supported by both the government and by Labor. This was something I grappled with at the Constitutional Convention. Was that issue of natural justice a dilemma? Is it a problem that, even if the President were dismissed and that ratification were not approved, that person would still lose their job? That is something that I have grappled with, but I think your bringing that up supports the inclusion of the Senate in the dismissal process. I hope I do not misrepresent Professor Zines, but I think his arguments also bolstered the inclusion of the Senate in the dismissal process simply because it provided further disincentive for the Prime Minister to embark on such a course of action unless he or she ensured that he or she would be supported, but supported by a majority and a more representative and diverse group.Senator Andrew Murray likes to refer to this dismissal process as an `unfair dismissal'. In many respects, he is right. The Australian republic's President would have the dubious honour of being the only public official in this country not entitled to rely on natural justice principles in the event of a move to dismiss that person, and the term `unfair dismissal' comes to mind. Not only would he or she not have the opportunity to hear or answer reasons for the dismissal but half the body responsible for the appointment of that person would have no say in that dismissal process.Finally, Senator Bolkus said initially that this changed the balance of power. He used the term `gridlock' again in his argument—a point that was picked up by one of the witnesses to the joint select committee, Professor Galligan, who said:All the more reason—to involve the Senate—because if it is that sort of stand-off between the houses, why give the whistle to one house?There is a change in the balance of power. This proposal not only entrenches the primacy of the House of Representatives but also—as we have seen in earlier debates and unsuccessful amendments—entrenches the power of the bipolar political system, or the old two-party system, and the power of not only the Leader of the Opposition but the Prime Minister. We seek to move away from that. We seek to restore the Senate to its rightful place in this process. For that reason, I urge honourable senators to consider the amendment before them.17:43:007313Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I thank my good friends Senator Harradine, Senator Murray and Senator Stott Despoja for what they have said. But Senator Stott Despoja said that the only person who would be subject to an unfair dismissal if this goes through would be the President. That is not quite right because the Prime Minister would be too, under this. I want to take up that balance. Given the power that the Prime Minister has and the sorts of functions that he or she is going to perform and given the power that the President will have if this goes through and the functions and power he or she will perform, who is more likely to want to get rid of the other? I would suggest it is the President, because the President—beyond his or her power of dismissal—has very little power. The main thing is that he or she is a symbolic figure. The Prime Minister is the sort of person whom, as history has shown, a Governor-General or President might get rid of. As you say, there is no precedent so far for a Governor-General having been dismissed. There is a precedent for a Prime Minister having been dismissed. In the whole of this, that is to be remembered.The last point that I want to make is this: you talk about the House of Representatives moving without the Senate, but of course the Prime Minister is made by the House of Representatives without the Senate. If you want a balance between the President and the Prime Minister, that is to be remembered. The Prime Minister is both made and unmade in the House of Representatives. It is true enough that, under this system, the President will be made in both houses. However, the fact that the House of Representatives will unmake him or her is not as bad as may first be thought, when you realise that the Prime Minister is subject to the same sort of process—except that, in the case of the President, two-thirds of the parliament has to dismiss him or her whereas, in the case of the Prime Minister, 50 per cent plus one can get rid of him or her.17:46:007313Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government's position is that it does not agree with this amendment. This amendment shares some similarity with two other amendments that are to be moved. In this instance, the Democrat amendment provides for the Prime Minister to remove the President on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. A similar sentiment is expressed in relation to the Greens amendment. The government finds that this is perhaps both legalistic and vague. The question is one of how you judge misbehaviour. Is it justiciable?In the United States, we have seen the conduct of a President come under scrutiny and there have been all sorts of conjectures as to whether that has constituted misbehaviour. There does seem to be something of a subjective aspect in the whole matter. There is of course the involvement of the Senate and there has been much debate about that. The government has taken the view that this was not a matter which was contained in the convention model. Indeed, there was no recommendation by the committee that there be any dismissal, or removal of this sort, of the President by the Prime Minister. I refer to page 73 of the joint committee's report:The Committee notes that the draft legislation substantially implements the dismissal model recommended by the Constitutional Convention.I have just referred to that. It was, after all, an undertaking by this government to carry out the model as recommended by the Convention. The committee went on to state:The Committee is not persuaded that any of the alternative dismissal mechanisms suggested was better than that contained in the Republic Bill. In particular, the Committee considers that the proposed `quasi-judicial' dismissal procedure, which is appropriate in relation to a judicial officer who must be independent of Parliament, would not be appropriate in respect of the President, who would be part of the executive arm of government. Furthermore, the Committee feels that most of the alternative dismissal mechanisms put forward would probably, in practice, be extremely difficult to satisfy.I think that really sums up the position. For those two very strong reasons—that this is not contained in the convention model or one put forward by the committee—the government does not accept or agree to this amendment. In any event, there are aspects of both this amendment and the other—perhaps I am debating it cognately, but I think that is wise in view of the constraints we have on time—that approve misbehaviour, and that is something which I have said is perhaps both legalistic and vague at the same time. For that reason, the government is not persuaded to agree to the amendment.17:49:007314Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It is for the very reason of the presumption that the President will be part of the executive arm of government that this amendment needs supporting. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Stott Despoja's ) be agreed to.17:54:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)11Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Lees, M. H. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.44Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G. Carr, K.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Ferris, J. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Knowles, S. C. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Progress reported.Business7314731417:58:007314Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I seek leave to move a motion to dispense with the consideration of government documents today. I understand that through discussion outside of the chamber, in view of the time constraints in relation to the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , agreement has been reached to do away with government documents this evening.Leave granted.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I move:That:(a) consideration of government documents not be proceeded with today; and(b) consideration of government business continue from 6.50 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. today.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7315s8417315Consideration resumed.18:01:007315Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(8) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 4 to 16), omit section 62, substitute:62 Removal of President The President may be removed from office by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the members of each House, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The President may not be removed from office before each House of the Parliament has considered a report from a commission established by the Parliament for the purpose of inquiring into the alleged ground for removal of the President. The President may address a house before that house votes on a resolution to remove the President from office.I advise the committee that I will take the vote on this on the voices. I believe we have had the debate on this issue so I do not intend to speak at any length. I merely want to point out that the addition I have put in this amendment to the wording put earlier by Senator Stott Despoja is that the parliament would appoint a commission to inquire into any alleged grounds for the removal of the President. To me that was the addition of a natural justice process. The second addition was that the President may address a house before that house votes on the resolution to remove the President from office, again a second natural justice safeguard, if you like. That is the key difference between that and the earlier amendment put, but I think we have had the debate and I will take the vote straightaway, if the committee so wishes.Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Special Minister of State) (6.02 p.m.) The government does not agree with that amendment. The grounds have been stated adequately and I thank Senator Murray for his comments.18:02:007315Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition is of the same opinion. We have had the debate. We also oppose this amendment as we will oppose Green amendments (4) and (5) when they come up later.Amendment not agreed to.18:02:007315Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 4 to 16), omit section 62, substitute:62 Removal of President The President may be removed from office by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, agreed to by an absolute majority of the members of each House, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.This is the third alternative to involve the Senate in the dismissal of the President. This Australian Greens formulation would mean that the removal of a President would require the same process as is currently in the Constitution—and has been for 100 years—for the removal of a High Court judge who either misbehaves or becomes incapable, and that is that each house of parliament would have to vote to approve of that dismissal in the same period of the sitting of parliament. This formulation is taken, as I said, from the Constitution. Fortunately, it has never been used for a High Court judge. I hope it does not have to be used for a President in the future, but it does give a check on the executive. It does mean that the parliament which appoints the President is also involved in the dismissal. We have had the debate; we are not going to succeed with it, but let that not diminish the importance of this amendment. It is crucial, as far as the Greens are concerned, to this legislation.Amendment not agreed to.18:04:007315Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 14 to 16), omit the third paragraph of section 62, substitute: The failure of the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President shall be taken to be an expression of lack of confidence in the Prime Minister.This amendment at least puts some pressure on a Prime Minister, who now is given this extraordinary power to remove the President with effect immediately. It would mean a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister failed to get a vote in the House of Representatives within 30 days of that removal. This is an amendment to ensure that the Prime Minister does not ever undertake the dismissal of a President too lightly and knows that, if they were not to succeed in a House of Representatives vote, which Prime Ministers ought to be able to command, they in turn would be dismissed and the matter would be put to the people in an election. That would be the effective outcome of this amendment. It is a backstop amendment. It does not get over the problem of the Senate not being involved in a dismissal, but it does add some very important gravity to the actions of a Prime Minister and may have a sobering effect at least on a Prime Minister who is not giving due weight to the seriousness of an act to dismiss a President.Amendment not agreed to.18:06:007316Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I withdraw amendment No. 9 on sheet 1472 revised.18:06:007316Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The government has indicated that opposition amendment No. 5 can be dealt with by ordinary legislation. On the basis of that assurance, we withdraw this amendment.18:06:007316Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:(2) Schedule 2, item 41, page 13 (after line 14), after the definition of The original States , insert: The President means the President for the time being.This amendment is in relation to the tenure of office holders. The term `President' would be defined in proposed section 127 to mean the President from time to time. Proposed section 63 would provide that provisions relating to the President extend and apply to any person acting as the President. Together these sections would mirror the current operation of the first part of section 4 of the Constitution and put beyond doubt that persons holding office during the pleasure of the President under the Constitution do not cease to hold office on the expiration of the term of a President or an Acting President. The government submits that this would enhance the technical operation of the bill. I commend the amendment to the chamber.18:07:007316Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will be supporting this machinery provision, if you like. I am just wondering why `for the time being' was chosen rather than acting or serving.18:08:007316Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is a drafting point. `For the time being' is a common expression used which gives an office or some situation an ongoing nature. If you said specifically `the President or Acting President', that is always rather specific, and I think that really the phrase that the government has adopted is one that is more widely understood. I think that really covers it adequately. It is simply a drafting aspect.18:09:007316Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports this minor amendment.Amendment agreed to.18:09:007316Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:(6) Schedule 3, item 1, page 14 (after line 32), after clause 3, insert:3A Constitutional Convention to be held Not less than three years and not more than five years after the commencement of Schedules 1 and 2 to the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , the Prime Minister must convene a Constitutional Convention to consider, and report to the Parliament on, the following: (i) the operation and effectiveness of the alterations of this Constitution made by the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 ; (ii) any other matters relevant to the operation of Australia's federal system of government including (but not limited to): (a) the roles of the Commonwealth, State and local governments; (b) the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship; (c) the need for the Commonwealth to have the power to make laws with respect to the environment; (d) the electoral system and, in particular, the use of proportional representation to elect the members of the Parliament; (e) the method for making alterations to this Constitution; (f) constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation; (g) equal representation of men and women in the Parliament; (h) options for enhanced involvement of the people in the processes of governance. Not less than two-thirds of the total number of delegates to the Convention must be directly chosen by the people of Australia voting as one electorate.This is a very important amendment being put forward by the Australian Greens. It holds faith with the Constitutional Convention itself. It is a crucial amendment from the Constitutional Convention to ensure that a further convention would be held, two-thirds elected by the people of Australia, within three to five years after the convention last year and after the establishment of the republic. I might add that without this recommendation going forward the Constitutional Convention would not have succeeded in the outcome of recommending the republic in the way that it did. There were critical votes in that convention which depended on this further convention to look at the whole of the Constitution, to involve all of the Australian people and to look at sections of the Constitution not just restricted to the presidency, with a view to improving the Constitution as we move into the 21st century. I am moving this amendment in good faith from that convention. It is extraordinarily important that it be supported. It is an act of faith with those people who were disappointed with the options coming out of the convention.The amendment opens up with a definitive type of time line preceded by an information and education program and then an information seeking program from the Australian people for further review of the Constitution. It would be an act of bad faith for this not to become part of this legislation. It is not good enough to leave it to some other political mechanism; we need it built in as part of this legislation. To not do so is to not keep faith with those members of the convention who expected this as an outcome and went along with the outcome of the convention with this as a condition. So it is a very important amendment.It would enable, for example, the review of the Constitution, taking into account delegates from all across Australia, on such matters as the roles of the Commonwealth, state and local governments. I particularly note there local government, which is currently left out of the Constitution. Another matter is the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship. There has been a lot of talk of a bill of rights in this country. The United States has one and many other countries do; we do not. Another matter is the need for the Commonwealth to have the power to make laws with respect to the environment. This is crucially important for the majority of Australians, particularly in a situation in which the reverse is happening, where the Commonwealth is devolving laws away from itself regarding the environment at the moment.It would look at the electoral system, in particular predicated on the notion of one person, one vote, one value in this country. Other matters are methods of altering the Constitution, constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation, the equal representation of men and women in parliament and options for enhanced involvement of the people in the processes of governance—that is, to improve democracy. These are very important matters, and I think it is incumbent as an act of faith that the government and the opposition support this amendment.18:13:007317Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting this amendment. We think it is important that there be another opportunity—in fact, ongoing opportunities—for Australians to be involved in the debate about constitutional reform and indeed modernisation of our Constitution. I think you will find that Australian Democrats in this chamber and around the country have been at the forefront of a lot of constitutional debates and advocacy for constitutional reform. We have long favoured broad ranging constitutional changes. An Australian head of state and the move towards a republic is just one of those changes. Senator Brown has referred to everything from a bill of rights to the roles and rights of the states to the republican issue and reconciliation. There is a whole range of issues that we would like to see examined. We believe that extensive community consultation processes, as referred to in the Constitutional Convention communique, are also appropriate.18:14:007318Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition does not support this amendment. In doing so we do not think we are breaching faith with many people at the Constitutional Convention. Labor has indicated its support for the concept in principle. There needs to be a greater understanding of the Constitution and the need for change to it. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has in recent days specifically indicated that he would support this sort of concept, and Labor members, as did the majority in the joint parliamentary committee on the republic referendum, indicated support for this concept as well.We think it is inappropriate to be put into legislation, particularly this legislation. However, we do think Senator Brown should—and we would encourage him to do this—move a motion in the Senate. We would support that. If you are to introduce this sort of concept in this legislation, once again you may find it may have some unintended consequences. For instance, the concept of delegates being elected by the people of Australia voting as one electorate throws in a snag which, once again, would imperil the chances of the main question being successful. If you are telling the people of Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia that they will come at the end of the list of all other people when voting for delegates to this convention, you will minimise your chances in those states. They will recognise that there is no way that their combined population would match the popula tions of New South Wales and Victoria. So, Senator Brown, there are some matters of a technical nature that need to be canvassed. I do suggest you pursue this as a motion in the Senate.18:15:007318Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government does not support this amendment. I might say at the outset that the Prime Minister's commitment to put the model to a referendum did not extend to the convention's proposals for other changes which are not necessary to implement a republic. Of course, the convention resolved that, if a republican system of government were introduced, the government should convene a further Constitutional Convention. This question, the government believes, is best addressed in the event that Australia does vote to become a republic. A further Constitutional Convention, in that case, would be one option that the government would consider as it looked for practical means of progressing the public debate on important constitutional issues.The government does note that the joint committee did take the view that further community discussion on constitutional reform would be beneficial. I think the government would not take issue with that. However, it does not see its way clear to support the inclusion in this legislation of a further convention. It was just pointed out to me that a former French monarch, apparently Napoleon III, said he would be baptised by a referendum but would not live with his feet in it. That is a good point, because here we are looking at future change and future engagement with the people of Australia, which can be done by policy and not by an amendment of this sort which is casting it in concrete.Through the chair to Senator Brown: we are not breaching faith at all. In fact, we are demonstrating good faith. We said we would take the convention model to the people of Australia and we are doing just that in the event that this bill is passed. That will be done on 6 November.18:18:007318Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Ellison has got up repeatedly during the day and said the government was voting this way or that way because the Constitutional Convention found in favour of this way or that way. But when it gets to the opportunity—moved by delegate Tim Costello, if I remember correctly, and seconded by Christine Milne—that the Constitutional Convention felt so strongly about, that there ought to be further consultation with the Australian people, suddenly it is reverse gear. It is the same with the Labor Party. Senator Bolkus gets up and says, `Chair, there are technical difficulties with this.' Why aren't those technical difficulties being dealt with by the Labor Party right here and now so that this amendment can be got through? That is a cop-out.The ALP, by the way, supported a motion to this effect put forward by Senator Margetts when we were dealing with referendum legislation back in March this year. But what happens time and time again with the big parties is that, when they get to the point of keeping faith—with having to consult with the Australian people and give a bit of power back to the electorate—faith is breached, and this is a breach of faith. Those people who were at the convention will know it is.We would not be sitting here tonight debating this matter had this commitment not been made, through the convention, that a further convention would be held further down the line to resolve so many issues which that Constitutional Convention wanted to deal with but could not. `Yes, Senator Brown can move a motion in the Senate,' says Senator Bolkus. `Leave it to us. Trust us. Trust the big political parties.' Well, I am saying that if you have trust in the people, if you are going to give faith to the people, you would be supporting this amendment and you would have overcome the technical difficulties that you see in it.In not supporting this amendment, Labor and the coalition are welshing on the Constitutional Convention outcome. It is welshing on the good faith that the delegates expressed at that time to get a resolution, part of which was this pivotal commitment to the establishment of a further Constitutional Convention. No wonder people lose faith in politics. No wonder people lose faith in the big parties. As the government has done today, you just use the outcome of the Constitutional Convention when it suits you but you turn your back on it when it involves people getting a further hearing down the line. Why? Because the big parties want to keep that power to themselves; they want to restrict it to themselves. They do not want to be tied down by any commitment to a gathering of the people which was not totally under their control, much as that effect was attempted. This is a shameful outcome. It is a breach of faith. Again, it must make people wonder about the health of the big parties and the respect that they have for the people when they can break an agreement coming from a convention as important as this one. So be it.18:21:007319Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—The government and the opposition are quite capable of defending themselves, but Senator Brown has accused the government of welshing on a commitment that it has given. Similarly, Senator Brown has indicated that the opposition is welshing on a commitment. We have heard from Senator Ellison that the government has given no such commitment. We have heard Senator Bolkus indicate that Senator Brown can move this sort of resolution in the Senate. Accusing people of welshing on commitments does not advance the discussion, especially when the government, for example, has indicated that such a commitment was never ever made. You suggest that this is a shameful outcome. Clearly that is not the case in respect of what has been said to us here by both the government and the opposition.Serious questions have been raised in my mind about the matters that have been suggested in this amendment—for example, the suggestion of a bill of rights. The chambers have debated this on previous occasions and a considerable amount of concern has been expressed by members of parliament and others that the incorporation of a bill of rights, either into the Constitution or as legislation through both houses of parliament, tends to remove power from the people. That is, it tends to clothe judges in powers to make judge made laws—and judges are not accountable to the people. That is an argument. I have heard that sort of argument over many years and I think there is some validity in it.On another point on Senator Brown's amendment, I seriously suggest that the last sentence should certainly not be moved by a senator from a smaller state—a senator from Tasmania. As has been indicated by Senator Bolkus, leaping in uncharacteristic fashion to the defence of the smaller states—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Where did I come from? Not far from Peterborough.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I apologise, Senator Bolkus. We are grateful. The amendment says:Not less than two-thirds of the total number of delegates to the Convention must be directly chosen by the people of Australia voting as one electorate.I agree with Senator Bolkus that that certainly minimises the power and likely influence of persons from the smaller states and regions. I do not think that is appropriate, particularly in the Senate, which is supposed to be the chamber which protects the rights of the states.18:26:007320Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Clearly Senator Harradine was not at the Constitutional Convention. I did not draw up this outcome. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention did. Senator Harradine, I believe in calling a spade a spade. I also believe in honouring outcomes and not being selective about them. I have my own opinion on a bill of rights. Your opinion and my opinion do not come into this. It is the people of Australia who have the right to debate the matter and to have another convention look at that matter. The fact that it has been debated in this chamber over the last few decades does not put a halter on it being debated in the future.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—Yes it did. You are accusing me of something you did.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You entered into this debate; you defend yourself. The fact is I am bringing forward in good faith a pivotal outcome of the Constitutional Convention and the big parties—and now Senator Harradine—are saying no to it. I cannot do any more than that. Let that be on the record.Amendment not agreed to.18:28:007320Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:(3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 15 (after line 24), at the end of clause 4, add: Despite the alteration of section 117 of this Constitution made by the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , that section continues to apply for the benefit of subjects of the Queen who were resident in a State immediately before the alteration took effect.This amendment is a somewhat technical aspect in that it provides continued protection for subjects of the Queen. This matter was brought up during the course of the hearing before the joint committee. I will refer to that part of the evidence which is relevant. On page 83 of the committee report, in referring to the previous amendment, the committee stated:. . . the main objection was that the substitution of the term `Australian citizen' for `subject of the Queen' effectively narrows the scope of s.117 in its present form. Mr Jeremy Buxton—who was from Western Australia—stated that theamendment apparently fails to recognise those `subjects of the Queen' who enjoy such rights of citizenship as voting in State and Commonwealth elections but who are not formally Australian citizens. These people will presumably lose the protection of s.117 that they currently have through this amendment.I might just recap from there. Section 117 of the Constitution currently precludes a subject of the Queen, resident in any state, being subjected to any disability or discrimination in another state that is not equally applicable to a subject of the Queen resident in that other state. The republic bill would substitute `Australian citizen' as the most equivalent expression for `subject of the Queen' in section 117. The term `Australian citizen', although an appropriate replacement expression, arguably has a slightly narrower meaning than `subject of the Queen' in the Australian context. I hark back to the evidence given by Mr Jeremy Buxton in that regard. The government would maintain that the conversion to a republic should not remove rights already accrued to individuals under section 117 of the Constitution.The amendment that is being proposed, therefore, would alter schedule 2 to ensure that the bill does not remove any right accrued under section 117 at the time of the conversion to a republic. This issue was addressed by the joint committee in recommendation 13, which recommended:. . . that the Republic Bill be amended so that no person who currently enjoys the protection from discrimination on the basis of residence afforded by s.117 of the Constitution would be deprived of that protection as a result of the amendment to s.117 proposed in the Republic Bill.I believe that this is an appropriate amendment. It is technical in nature. It is something that was not specifically considered by the Convention but, certainly from the spirit of the discussions at the Convention, I do not think delegates thought that in the transition to a republic any Australian should lose any rights thereby. I therefore commend the amendment to this chamber.18:31:007321Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition supports this amendment. It has virtually the same objective as opposition amendment No. 8, which, as a consequence of our supporting this amendment, we will not be pursuing. We indicate support for this for the reasons given by the minister and we indicate that we withdraw opposition amendment No. 8.18:32:007321Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats will also be supporting this machinery provision.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The question is that the amendment moved by the minister be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We move now to schedule 3, item 1, clause 7 of the bill, dealing with the amendment of the Australia Acts. The question is that clause 7 stand as printed.18:32:007321Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government intends to oppose clause 7 in the following terms :(4) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (lines 1 to 11), clause 7 to be opposed. This relates to the amendment of the Australia Acts. In relation to this, the government would submit that section 7 of the Australia Acts should be amended as part of any move to a republic to rule out any argument that it entrenches Crown links at a state level. This can be done either following a request from all states or by constitutional amendment. The republic bill as introduced included a fall-back provision which would have facilitated the amendment of the Australia Acts by the Commonwealth parliament.However, all states have passed legislation requesting the Commonwealth parliament to amend the Australia Acts if the republic bill is approved at the referendum. With that in mind the amendment removes that fall-back provision from the republic bill. This proposal honours the government's commitment to the states on the preferred procedure for amendment of the Australia Acts. The states had preferred that the amendment be done at the behest of a request from all the states, and that has now been done. Therefore, this fall-back provision is of no consequence. I would submit to this chamber that this is an appropriate amendment, one which has the support of the states and goes to the efficacy of the legislation and the transitional arrangements to a republic if it is voted for.18:34:007321Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The proposal is technical in nature and is supported by the opposition.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that clause 7 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.18:35:007321Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—We are now dealing with a new amendment which has recently been circulated. It is on sheet EE211 and relates to schedule 3, item 1 on page 16. I move:(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (line 15), after "conventions", insert ", including those".This deals with the evolution of constitutional conventions. This is an amendment of a technical nature. Proposed clause 8, schedule 3, provides that the constitutional conventions in relation to the reserve powers are able to continue to evolve. This amendment will make it completely clear that any other constitutional conventions will also be able to continue to evolve. These other conventions may deal with issues such as who advises the President in particular circumstances. This amendment will therefore simply confirm what the government believes to be the case: that any constitutional conventions in relation to the non-reserve powers will continue, and that these conventions will be able to evolve. This amendment will deal with the issues raised by the committee in its recommendations 8, 9 and 10. This amendment will make opposition amendments (1) and (6) unnecessary. I might just refer to recommendations 8, 9 and 10 of the joint committee. Recommendation 8 stated:The Committee recommends that consideration be given to amending the Republic Bill to state that the conventions which currently determine the appropriate source of advice for the Governor-General apply in respect of the President.Recommendation 9 then goes on to state:The Committee recommends that, if Recommendation 8 is accepted, consideration be given to making specific provision in the Republic Bill to maintain the capacity of the conventions which currently determine the appropriate source of advice to evolve.So those conventions which currently determine the appropriate source of advice will continue to not only exist but also evolve. Recommendation 10 states:The Committee recommends that cl.8 of proposed Schedule 2 of the Republic Bill be amended to provide for the continuing evolution of all constitutional conventions, including those not associated with the reserve powers.What we have is the continuation of the evolution of constitutional conventions, which is the case at the moment. They are evolving over time. They are in existence. This is a proposition which the government believes will maintain as much as possible the status quo in relation to these conventions. The government does not believe that this is inconsistent with the convention. It is certainly in accordance with the three recommendations that I have mentioned which were put forward by the joint committee.18:38:007322Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—This amendment does what opposition amendment No. 6 sought to do. We indicate support for this amendment. We also indicate that we will not be moving opposition amendment No. 6. We were concerned about the evolution of conventions, including the conventions that govern the areas from which a Governor-General/President could get advice. Senator Ellison is therefore right when he says that this amendment, if carried, would also replace an opposition amendment which was carried earlier in the debate. I indicate now that if this amendment is carried I will seek to recommit—probably immediately so we can do it all in one bundle—opposition amendment No. 1 and indicate that we would not be pressing that amendment.Amendment agreed to.18:39:007322Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I seek leave to recommit opposition amendment No. 1, which was carried earlier.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—For the sake of defeating it, I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 25), at the end of section 59, add: Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to the Constitution, the constitutional conventions concerning the appropriate sources of advice for the Governor-General in respect of the exercise of the reserve powers applying immediately before the office of Governor-General ceased to exist shall apply in respect of the President.Amendment not agreed to.18:40:007322Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move government amendment No. 5 on sheet EE205:(5) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (after line 16), after clause 8, insert:8A Justiciability The enactment of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 does not make justiciable the exercise by the President of a reserve power referred to in section 59 of this Constitution if the exercise by the Governor-General of that power was not justiciable.This amendment deals with the justiciability of reserve powers. The government believes that this is an important amendment. The traditional view is that the reserve powers and the conventions which govern their exercise are high political matters which are not justiciable. That view, however, has been questioned. Proposed section 59 of the Constitution is not intended to resolve the existing uncertainty. It has been designed to leave things as they are while keeping faith with the convention model and ruling out any argument that the reserve powers or conventions are lost with the removal of the Crown. This could be clearer, however. Clause 8A has been added to rule out any argument that the enactment of proposed section 59 of the Constitution would, in articulating a requirement that the reserve powers are to be exercised in accordance with the constitutional conventions, make the exercise of a reserve power by the President justiciable.Clause 8A is intended to ensure that the changes made by the bill do not of themselves make justiciable the exercise of a reserve power that was not justiciable when exercised by the Governor-General. The government would say that this clears up the matter and maintains the status quo, again keeping faith with the sentiments of the constitutional model and recommendation 7 of the joint select committee. Recommendation 7 states:The Committee recommends that consideration be given to including in the Republic Bill a provision which makes it clear that the amendments made by the Republic Bill to the Constitution do not affect the justiciability or otherwise of anything concerning the reserve powers or the associated conventions.I would submit that this amendment is intended to put beyond doubt that the enactment of the bill does not affect the question of whether a reserve power may be justiciable and that the status quo remains. Having said that, I commend the amendment to the chamber.18:43:007323Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Once again, this amendment seeks to do what opposition amendment No. 7 was seeking to do. In supporting this amendment, we indicate that we will not be pressing opposition amendment No. 7 for the reasons the minister has mentioned. Essentially what we are doing here is maintaining the status quo. That is what we were seeking to do with our amendment.18:43:007323Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I indicate that I welcome the amendment by the government. It seeks to deal with some of the mischief that an earlier amendment of mine was addressing. Whilst it is somewhat of an unusual way to do it, I think it does assist in that matter.18:44:007323Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I want to put on the record that by his support of this Senator Murray has been making efforts to improve the bill and he has not been, as some people have been saying, trying to instil flaws in it so he can vote against it.Amendment agreed to.18:45:007323Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Green amendment No. 7:(7) Page 16 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 4—Amendment of the Constitution to insert a new Preamble 1 After the heading "THE CONSTITUTION" Insert:PreambleHaving come together in 1901, relying on God, as a Federation under the Crown, and the Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign democracy, our people drawn from many nations, we the people of Australia, proud of our diversity, celebrating our unity, loving our unique and ancient land, recognising indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of our land, believing in freedom and equality, and embracing democracy and the rule of law, commit ourselves to this our Constitution.This amendment seeks to insert into the legislation the favoured preamble.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—The bill is coming in tomorrow so why not do it then?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will do it now because it is here. It is here as an amendment.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Why not do it tomorrow?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Bolkus, in the spirit of goodwill, if the opposition would prefer me to hold this over until the morning, I will. We will also be dealing with the new government and Democrat preamble tomorrow. I would be quite happy to deal with it then. However, because this amendment is here tonight I would like it dealt with first tomorrow. If Senator Bolkus can see a means of doing that, I would be happy to hold it over. I will make a couple of comments on the alternative preambles. This preamble has a much greater commitment to the relationship not only as custodians of the land—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. The suggestion I make, Senator Brown, is that we deal with this amendment tomorrow because my understanding is that the actual legislation will come before the Senate tomorrow. We may have a debate about it tonight and then have to address the whole issue again when the preamble bill is introduced in the Senate tomorrow. I am told it is expected that we will debate this tomorrow. That is why I suggest that we debate it not in the context of this legislation but in the context of the preamble bill, which will be before us tomorrow. I add that for Senator Brown.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—That is not really a point of order. I call Senator Brown.10000Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I think the alternative argument, Senator Bolkus, is that we deal with this amendment tonight so that we know where we stand. In the spirit of goodwill, let me say that, if the opposition is keen for me to hold this over until tomorrow, I will. I will speak for a few moments on the matter while the opposition comes to a determination about that.There are two points I want to make. The preamble that the Greens are putting forward—and this is the one that came from Mr Evans and was discussed with Senator Stott Despoja early in the year—states:Having come together in 1901, relying on God, as a Federation under the Crown, and the Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign democracy, our people . . .This deals with the historic relationship between the Australian people and God at the establishment of the Commonwealth in 1901. It does not pass my notice that the current Constitution, in which we rely on the blessing of the Almighty, is very different to the wording of the preamble which has come up today, which puts hope in God. Goodness gracious, isn't it better to leave reference to God out of the preamble than to descend from relying on God to hope in God?I believe in a secular society like ours that it would be better if the first phrase in the proposed government and Democrat preamble were removed, and I will so move at the appropriate time tomorrow. I also underscore and highlight the difference between the preamble that I am putting forward and that which was released today, in so far as recognising indigenous Australians. The preamble released today does not have the strength and validity that the words in my proposal have, those words being `recognising indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of our land'. How important those words are. How much stronger they are than the preamble today, which says:honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country . . .That falls very short of recognising indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of all our land. For those two reasons, I believe the preamble that I have moved to have adopted is better and stronger. It better represents the feelings of Australians. Maybe it would be worth the Democrats reconsidering this matter overnight, in particular with regard to the strength of recognition of indigenous Australians which is in the preamble that I am proposing here.I will wait to hear what Senator Bolkus has to say. I think the timetable we have is much less important than getting the better resolution and that we stand by the better proposal, which I put forward on behalf of the Australian Greens but which I have no difficulty in attributing to the Labor Party and Gareth Evans and, more particularly, the hundreds, if not thousands, of Australians who, over the last couple of years, contributed to it through the process of gathering opinion on how they thought the preamble to the Constitution should be worded.18:51:007324Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I understood that the preamble bill is being debated tomorrow. Senator Brown, we do not want to vote on this tonight in the context of this legislation but would rather debate it tomorrow in the context of the preamble legislation. As you have quite rightly said, there is joint parentage of the preamble that you have moved, though some parents have abdicated in recent hours, if not days. I would suggest to you that it would be best not to proceed with your amendment now, but to debate it tomorrow. By that stage we will be in a better position to digest the issue and develop a different position. If you choose not to proceed with this amendment now, then we can proceed with the rest of the bill and tackle the amendment in the morning in the context of the preamble legislation.18:52:007325Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I support Senator Bolkus in that and ask Senator Brown to bear in mind that tomorrow we will have a discrete debate, if you like, on the preamble. Deferring it or not voting on it tonight will not limit in any way the debate on the preamble, Senator Brown, but it is perhaps better placed when the preamble bill is introduced, and the government would agree to it being debated then.18:52:007325Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I hear those sentiments and I concur. I think it is better that in that circumstance we do hold it over to tomorrow and have a preamble debate on the merits of the two options with the benefit of overnight thinking. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, and in doing so I give notice that I will move this amendment effectively to the new legislation tomorrow.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—Is leave granted?18:53:007325Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—No, not at the moment. I think it is important to speak to some of the things that have been said by Senator Brown. Senator Brown is really indicating that he wants God out of the Constitution effectively. Senator Brown is moving a preamble which relegates God to history. If you analyse what is before you, that is precisely what this does. He mentioned the word `God' but he relegates God to history, because his preamble says:Having come together in 1901, relying on God, as a Federation under the Crown, and the Common wealth of Australia being now a sovereign democracy . . . He is referring to a historical event in 1901 when, he says, those people who came together relied on God—nothing to do with what we now should be doing. I think people looking at this particular proposal by Senator Brown should realise, as he I think admits, that he wishes to have God effectively taken out of the Constitution. We could discuss the matter but let us be very clear about it and not hide it by using the word `God'. He is actually using the words `relying on God' to refer to a historical coming together in 1901.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted for Senator Brown to withdraw his amendment?Amendment—by leave—withdrawn.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now turn back to page 1 of the bill and the title. (Quorum formed)18:59:007325Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 11 to 16), omit the title, substitute "A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President".The committee now turns its attention to the central element of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 , which we as parliamentarians know as the `long title' but which the Australian people will become familiar with as the actual wording of the question on their ballot papers on Saturday, 6 November this year. As such, the set of words which is now before the committee will become the public face of the referendum. The Australian public understands very well just how important it is that these words accurately and fairly reflect the fundamental issues being put to the vote at the referendum.For any holder of office in the Commonwealth government to propose a referendum question which is inaccurate or biased would, in my view, be committing a considerable disservice to the Australian people and to the Australian Constitution itself. The Labor Party believes that that is a very reasonable descrip tion of the Howard government's actions in relation to the wording of the question to be put before the people later this year. The Labor Party will continue to stand up for proper constitutional reform in this nation, including the fundamentally accurate and unbiased wording of referendum questions. It is for this reason that I have moved this amendment on behalf of the opposition.As I indicated in my speech at the second reading stage, Labor prefers the long title recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum. The committee's brief description of the outcome of the referendum process was an accurate and a very well formed description. It is a long title born of compromise on an all-party committee representing all sides of the republican debate. It is unquestionably the fairest and most accurate description of the change that Australians are being asked to vote on. First, it says what we all accept; that is, if the referendum is passed, then Australia will become a republic.Secondly, it provides a brief description of the type of republic that we will become. It says that the President will replace the Queen and the Governor-General. We believe that this is important because it distinguishes the type of republic proposed for Australia—if you like, a Westminster system republic where executive government is responsible to parliament, as opposed to the United States style of executive presidency. The committee's and Labor's version of the question focuses on the powers of the President—an issue that we believe is more important than the process by which the President is chosen.Finally, it makes it clear that the President must be an Australian. As we know, the Queen is not an Australian; the Governor-General need not be an Australian. These are the reasons that we prefer the long title recommended by the committee. We are keen to see whether anyone in this place, particularly those who are proposing alternative questions, is able to explain to the chamber why they believe the Labor Party's amendment is in any way inaccurate or biased.I turn to the preferred version of the long title that is being sponsored and supported by the Australian Democrats, to what we understand will be the proposed long title of the Democrats. We were told during the Prime Minister's press conference this morning that the Democrats were not successful in changing the government's mind on this particular question. I have got to say that it seems to me that the Democrats did not fight very hard for their preferred option, and I think that does throw a little bit of doubt on perhaps their willingness to follow through with their stated agenda. I made what I believe were some generous comments in my speech at the second reading stage in relation to the Democrats' approach—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That was out of character!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I would have thought that it was in character, Senator Evans. But you are entitled to your opinion, which I doubt would be shared by many. I think I mentioned that, although we do not think that the Democrats' proposed form of the question is as good as the all-party select committee's version, we did indicate that we believe that the long title proposed by the Democrats is reasonable. I understand that the Democrats' preferred long title was considered by the joint select committee and was an alternative compromise to the one that was actually adopted by the committee. While it is not as good as the one ultimately recommended—because it only provides the briefest description of the outcome of the process; namely, that Australia becomes a republic—we believe it is accurate. It is not misleading. I do not think a reasonable person can say that it is weighted in favour of either side of the debate on this important issue.I turn to the government's proposed version of the long title and the question because, in its present form, that long title is unacceptable. It is clearly biased in favour of the monarchist cause. It neglects to state that the President will be an Australian, which is an essential feature of the republican model that would result from the successful vote of the referendum. It describes only part of the selection process—naturally, the most unpopular part of the selection process—without describing the participation of Australians in the process.This has been done to deliberately and cynically bolster the monarchist argument that this model will see the President chosen by politicians. This is rather ironical, given that our current Constitution vests the choice of Governor-General in the most partisan of all political figures—that is, the Prime Minister. Similarly, the current referendum proposal has built-in safeguards, again relying on the institution of the parliament, in relation to the termination of a President's term. Under the current system, as Gough Whitlam has noted on a number of occasions since 1975, there are no safeguards regarding the termination of a Governor-General's commission. As we all know, the necessity of having the Queen herself withdraw a commission is no effective safeguard at all. The Australian Constitution requires the monarch to act on the advice of her ministers.The opposition has not seen or heard anything which can change our view that the Howard government's referendum question, in either the original form or the amended form, does not accurately or fairly reflect the proposed constitutional alteration. In this way, the government's proposal fails the basic fairness and accuracy tests for any referendum question. The inaccuracy and bias have been deliberately pursued by the Howard government with a clear objective in mind, and I mentioned this last night. The government understands implicitly that, in any form of polling, manipulation of the framing of the question is a sure-fire way to manipulate the end result.Madam Temporary Chair, you would recall the AC Nielsen poll earlier this week which offered concrete proof of the scope to dictate an end result. When the government's question was put to respondents, the question was lost. But when the joint committee's question was put to the sample group—that is, the same question that we are moving via this particular amendment today—there was a resounding win for the proposal. I have no doubt that the government's internal polling has told them exactly the same thing. We have a situation where the Prime Minister has probably snowed the genuinely republican members of his own frontbench and his own party room. He has dudded genuine republicans throughout Australia in the framing of the referendum questions. I believe a poll like the AC Nielsen poll has outed the Prime Minister on this issue. I would urge members of the coalition in the Senate, and perhaps I should include the Australian Democrats in this—they are emerging coalition partners; I think that is a fair thing to say—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—At least we're not the fourth faction of the ALP!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I would urge the coalition parties to consider the results of the Nielsen poll and the very clear message it contains about the motives and manipulations of Prime Minister John Howard. I say to Senator Woodley: if only you would be so honourable as to be the fourth faction of the Labor Party, you would also be welcome. The Prime Minister should not be allowed to dictate the result of constitutional reform. He should not be allowed to do it in the shabby and deceptive way that he has. We are going to work as actively as we can against these tactics.The bipartisan joint select committee made a clear compromise recommendation on the long title. It is a compromise that is fair to all. In my view, to give in to the tactics of the Prime Minister would be absolutely unacceptable. Further compromise would mean giving in to the Prime Minister's tactics and the tactics of his monarchist supporters. The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has often spoken of his own passion for the republic. I reckon that is a passion that is a feature of the Labor Party as a whole. It reflects the view of the significant majority of Australians. We also passionately believe all Australians deserve to be presented with a fair and accurate referendum question. We are committed to ensuring that a proper choice is put before the people, and I would urge all senators to support the amended long title that I have moved on behalf of the opposition.19:14:007327Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Australian Greens are also moving an identical amendment. Therefore much of what Senator Faulkner had to say applies. The hour is late, so I am not going over that territory again. This amendment is the outcome of a committee that looked at it very closely and is one that we support. I endorse the amendment.19:15:007328Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the amendment. However, I wish to put on record an acknowledgment of the joint select committee's good work, not only in its advisory report but also in its recommendation that is before us. I signed off on that recommendation. I certainly felt that the wording was acceptable and worthy, but the amendment before us does not have the total support of my Democrat colleagues. We believe that the following amendment will provide an equally simple and accurate, but we think also a new and improved, version in this debate.19:15:007328Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I want to go through a little bit of history in respect of the opposition's amendment and Senator Brown's amendment, and also to reflect for a moment on the Democrat amendment. We are concerned here about getting a real outcome. Our concern is that there has been a long period of consultation and development of the amendment that both the Labor Party and the Greens put up today. It is the amendment that basically came from the bipartisan joint parliamentary committee. It reflects both the concerns and the desire of that committee—the desire being to get a fair reflection of the process.Before going back to analyse what we have done as a committee, can I say to the Democrats that this debate will obviously go on until the morning—we have got only three minutes to go and I am sure that other people want to speak in respect of this—but I am sure that the chamber would like to be apprised of how serious you are in respect of your amendment. If you are not going to support the Labor amendment and the Greens amendment then, as you of course have your own, you can tell us how good that is. We do not want to be victims of a charade here. We do not want to be taken down the garden path by the Democrats and then be told, `Oh, we were not really serious. The Prime Minister does not like it. Therefore we will not persist with it.' The Prime Minister has not liked quite a number of things about this process, all the way through. He did not in fact like having the process. He is obviously no republican.What we have at this stage of the debate is a Prime Minister who is saying to us, `Either take what I want or take nothing at all.' We should make him blink. The Senate should stand up and say, `Prime Minister, your proposal is not fair. It is not balanced against fairness in outcome in this debate.' But we do not want to be led by the Democrats, who in one sense I suppose, if you look at the statements over the last 24 hours, have graduated from being fairies at the bottom of the garden to developing their own child-care centre down there when it comes to negotiations.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Ha, ha!XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Senator Murray, you may laugh but, if you are serious about your proposal, do not tell us that you are going to be serious about it for 24 hours. If we are going to support it as a second best to ours, we want to know that you are prepared to take the Prime Minister on in respect of it. We also need you to know that on a number of occasions so far he has said, `No, this is not on'—but he has had to move in the interests of fairness and in response to public reaction. He looks very much like a spoiler when he says, `You will take what I give you and nothing else.' He has said that consistently through this debate; he says it again now. But what should be motivating you, as Democrats, and also the whole chamber, is how we get a fair and balanced question, and how we persist with it. As I said, the messages were somewhat mixed last night as to how serious the Democrats were in respect of their amendment. For instance, we are not going to be victims of a charade, if we have to support second best, and find ourselves supporting the Democrat amendment and then being told by the Democrats, `Well, the Prime Minister has said all or nothing and he may defer the referendum.' This issue is not the plaything of this Prime Minister, and that is a view that the public has expressed time after time in reaction to the way that he has played this debate.Progress reported.Adjournment732910000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.732919:20:007329Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I rise tonight to speak about an exceptional young policeman who died tragically last week in the Northern Territory: Sergeant Glen Huitson. By all accounts he was a remarkable person with a great capacity for giving and caring, and a strong love of life. He was the sort of person who holds a community together and makes it strong and good. Now, unfortunately, he has been lost to us. On Tuesday, 3 August at 11.45 a.m., Sergeant Glen Huitson was shot by a gunman in a cowardly attack while manning a roadblock on the Stuart Highway. He died in Royal Darwin Hospital approximately an hour after the shooting and is survived by his wife, Lisa, and their two children, Joseph, aged 2, and Ruby, aged six months.Sergeant Huitson was based at Adelaide River, a small and important community on the Stuart Highway, approximately 100 kilometres from Darwin. He had served in Alice Springs, Nauiyu Nambiyu and other communities throughout the Northern Territory, and was respected as a good cop who looked after people in his community with a gentle but firm hand. Sergeant Huitson was at the forefront of active policing with all its rewards and dangers. He was given a full police funeral on Saturday morning at St Mary's Cathedral in Darwin. As a mark of recognition and respect, over 2,000 people—family, friends, fellow officers and the general public—attended the funeral of this most well-known and loved man.For such a fine young man to have died in such a senseless attack is an absolute tragedy which now impacts so cruelly on his family, colleagues and the community. Sergeant Huitson had everything in life to live for, but he gave his life for the community of the Northern Territory doing his duty as a police officer. He was a brave man. In February of this year, without drawing his gun and with no lives being lost, Sergeant Huitson disarmed a drug-crazed gunman who had hijacked a tourist bus. His medal of valour for this extraordinary act of heroism was presented at his funeral to his widow, Lisa, by the Police Commissioner in a most moving ceremony.This tragic event has shocked the people of the Northern Territory to the core. It has made many reflect on the sacrifices that our police make in the interests of the public good and the risks they are called on to face courageously in carrying out their duty. This young officer and his family have made the ultimate sacrifice for the community. Sergeant Huitson was an exceptional police officer with an outstanding career to date and so much to look forward to. Most importantly, he was a husband, a father, a son, a brother and a friend to so many. His great loss is shared by the whole Northern Territory community. He will be missed.732919:23:007329Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to speak tonight about smoking, heart disease and, in particular, the Northern Territory government's lack of commitment to funding prevention programs. Two weeks ago the Heart Foundation, when celebrating its 40th birthday, praised the generosity of the Australian people, whose donations have greatly assisted the foundation in its mission of reducing heart disease in our community. The research carried out by the Heart Foundation provides important information which can be used in the fight against heart disease, and this information is often most powerfully channelled through the medium of television and video.Three months ago, during National Heart Week, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of a video called Listen to your heart. This short video, produced by the Heart Foundation in Darwin, tackles the very serious level of heart disease in Australia's indigenous community. The video with its simple messages and humour, using boxer James Swan as a role model, was impressive, and I congratulate both the Heart Foundation and those who were involved in producing the video on the results of their efforts. The aim of the video is to promote the reduction of lifestyle factors which increase the risk of heart disease and to encourage people to give up smoking, to adopt healthy eating patterns and to get more exercise. The distribution of this video to Aboriginal communities will be a small but important step in the effort to reduce heart disease in our indigenous communities.At its launch, the video was introduced by the Director of the Northern Territory Heart Foundation, Dr Chris Burns. Dr Burns told the assembled crowd that heart disease and stroke had reached epidemic proportions in Australia's indigenous community. In this context, he acknowledged that the video was a small but important contribution towards reducing heart disease amongst indigenous people. He also talked about the higher prevalence of juvenile smoking in the Northern Territory and pointed to the alarming differences between national and Territory rates of heart disease. The rate of heart disease in the Northern Territory is 1½ times the national average. But the facts on indigenous heart disease rates are particularly frightening. Indigenous Australians between the ages of 25 and 64 have seven to nine times greater risk of death from heart disease and stroke than other Australians. Unfortunately, around 40 per cent of all heart attacks and strokes cannot be fully explained by the risk factors we already know about, so some aspects of heart disease are still puzzling medical scientists.However, the message that came through from both Dr Burns and the video was loud and clear: when it comes to heart disease, prevention is better than cure. Some people might see this as a tired old cliche, a fact that is so blindingly obvious that it is barely worth wasting breath on. We believe that people have long since got the message—but perhaps not. Dr Burns went on to share some more statistics about rates of heart disease in the Territory and in Australia's indigenous community which might seem even more shocking than the ones I have already mentioned. Most people now know that smoking increas es the risk of several serious health conditions, including heart disease. The real message is getting people to stop as well as preventing young Australians from starting to smoke in the first place. This involves putting in place a range of programs which deter young people from starting to smoke and different strategies aimed at helping people to quit the habit.Governments in all states have recognised this by committing funds to smoking prevention and cessation programs. Yet the Northern Territory government has shown less commitment to funding tobacco programs than any other state or territory government. Given the high incidence of smoking-related illness in the Northern Territory, this is particularly disturbing. It is astonishing that, while the Northern Territory government receives an estimated $48 million in revenue from tobacco, it spends only $500,000 of this on smoking prevention programs. What is worse is that it has shown little interest in policing the sale of tobacco to juveniles. It was recently revealed that, since legislation prohibiting the sale of tobacco was introduced, there has been only one such charge. The health minister's reluctance to see there is a need for more resources to police the sale of tobacco to juveniles is particularly concerning, given reports that smoking prevalence is growing amongst Territory schoolchildren.The Northern Territory government's shameful record on tobacco control reached its peak this year when it received the Australian Medical Association's Dirty Ashtray Award. It managed to achieve this embarrassing title by scoring zero for performance on a range of tobacco control measures. These included a zero for restrictions on smoking in outdoor public places, a zero for point of sale advertising restrictions, a zero for regulation of nicotine and a zero for industry accountability.During National Heart Week, the Northern Territory Health Minister, Steve Dunham, was asked on radio about the level of government spending on smoking prevention programs. His response was stunningly evasive. He insisted that spending on smoking prevention was not limited to half a million dollars. Why? Because the Northern Territory government spends millions of dollars on hospital treatment of people with smoking related illnesses. Even the interviewer seemed amazed that the health minister could attempt to dodge the real issue in such an obvious way. The point of smoking prevention programs is to stop heart disease developing in the first place. The minister's claim that money spent on hospital treatment of smoking related illness could in any way be considered as money spent on smoking prevention is ridiculous.The Country-Liberal government have talked a lot recently about the overburdened public hospital system and the cost of providing health services in the Northern Territory. In fact, they were so concerned about the cost of hospital care that they recently considered privatising the entire public hospital system. But primary prevention could go a long way to relieving the burden on the public hospital system. It would go a long way to preventing people from developing the diseases which put them in hospital in the first place. But when it comes to divvying up the government's spoils from people's unhealthy habits, primary prevention barely gets a look in; the purse strings seem to be drawn very tightly.It is a pity that the attention currently being given to illicit drugs seems to have diverted the attention of governments away from the issue of tobacco smoking and its health effects. We should not forget that tobacco is a dangerous and addictive drug, claiming many more lives than either marijuana or heroin. In particular, heart disease is claiming more lives in the Northern Territory than anywhere else in Australia and the association with smoking is clear. The Northern Territory health department's own figures prove this. In the Northern Territory, smoking has been shown to double the risk of heart disease. With 35 per cent of the population smoking, much higher than the national average of 25 per cent, smoking cessation should be treated as a serious public health issue and funded accordingly. It is high time the Country-Liberal government used more of the bounty it reaps from tobacco to prevent this dangerous habit. If the Northern Territory govern ment is serious about reducing the level of preventable chronic disease and death associated with smoking, it should do the right thing and commit the resources to smoking prevention and tobacco regulation.In closing, I would like to reiterate the words of my colleague from the Northern Territory Senator Grant Tambling in relation to Sergeant Huitson's death in the previous fortnight. The words that Senator Grant Tambling said are true: it has shocked the Territory community. Along with many others, I attended Sergeant Huitson's funeral last Saturday. The police community is a big family. It is not only his immediate family that were most upset by his death but every member of the police force and most members of the community in the Territory. I congratulate Grant for putting on record the efforts that Glen Huitson made to the Territory and I would also like to put on record my sympathy for his family and my heartfelt thanks for the contribution he made to the Territory during his short life.733119:33:007331Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to speak on the issue of drugs in schools. I have noticed with interest Senator Tierney's contribution to the drugs debate. Today he criticised the terminology of `soft' drugs and `recreational' drugs. While these terms are flawed, I do not think the solution is to portray all drugs as equally bad and dangerous. Marijuana is not heroin, is not ecstasy, is not speed, is not LSD. Yes, marijuana can cause schizophrenia, it would seem, but let us not exaggerate the risks. Hyping up the dangers is no match for the attraction that illicit drugs exert through popular culture.Brian McConnell of Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform has warned that schoolchildren need the facts about drugs without exaggeration, embellishment or hype. As we know, the Prime Minister advocates zero tolerance of illicit drugs in schools. What will this mean in terms of the $18 million National Drug Education Strategy? Can any school based harm minimisation initiatives coexist with this aim?Hardly any of the $18 million has been spent so far. A draft paper has been produced, but that is about it. The government has said fighting drugs in schools is a priority, yet it has spent less than a seventh of the amount allocated for the strategy for 1998-99. In response to the strategy, Mr McConnell cited the UK instance of a 10-year-old boy bringing marijuana to his school's `show and tell'. Should this boy have been expelled from school? Prime Minister Howard has urged schools to expel any student using illegal drugs. Perhaps the marijuana came from the boy's parents. This incident neatly illustrates the point that, rather than being readily identifiable deviants, cannabis users often come from all walks of life. They are parents, employees, executives, teachers, stockbrokers, newsreaders, our favourite musicians and even politicians. Widespread usage is exactly why we cannot get through to children on a `just say no' message alone.We are far more comfortable with the idea that alcoholics are often respected members of society holding down good jobs and bringing up children. It does not mean we condone the addiction. Alcohol is implicated in family violence and, with tobacco, accounts for far more deaths and disease than illicit drugs. Yet, legal drugs are not addressed in the National Drug Education Strategy. We risk being thought of as hypocrites if we lecture children on the dangers of illegal drugs but do not address legal drugs. Drug use is everywhere in popular culture. We expect to whack emotional problems on the head with a new pill, whether it is viagra or a new range of drugs to treat social disorders. There is an expectation that we will find a pill for every problem.Recent findings by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that more than 40,000 children under 14 are on antidepressants. Some of these are as young as four. I would love to know what causes children this young to be depressed and what we might be able to do about it. In no way do I want to criticise medical solutions to child depression or attention deficit disorder and so on, but we do need to be vigilant in monitoring trends in diagnosis and usage and to always look for preventative measures. Depression is endemic, with the World Health Organisation expecting it will eventually overtake heart disease as the world's biggest killer.We need a debate on how we can help young people develop the resilience they need to negotiate an increasingly tough, complex world. A recent Queensland study of children in detention showed that most have a history of hard drinking and illicit drug use by the age of 15 and inject amphetamines and heroin at 40 times the rate of others their age. They begin using tobacco at the age of 10, alcohol and cannabis at 11, drank in excess of 10 standard drinks at a session and had a 50 per cent chance of having used sedatives or amphetamines. Forty per cent of those surveyed identified as Aboriginal and 90 per cent were male.A recent mental health week campaign featured a range of celebrities exercising their mental health by reading, fishing and playing sport. It was very well intended, but I doubt that anyone seeing those billboards would have come away with a different perspective on their own mental health. In a society with widening gaps between the haves and the have-nots, it seems strange to me that ordinary people are expected to take a message from comparing themselves with celebrities.My office recently came in contact with a high school student who had some strong ideas on drug education that I think are worth repeating here. She is not on a youth roundtable or any other organisation that filters the opinions of young people to make them fit for politicians' consumption. She is an ordinary student at a school that is well regarded in the community, but there cannabis is rife, with children as young as year 7 desperate to start smoking. Joints are sometimes laced with heroin and speed, something I doubt even school leavers five or 10 years ago had to contend with. Kids deal drugs at this school. Drug education sessions, she said, were a joke because the students usually knew more than the teachers.Most students did not know there was the school counsellor, but in any case counselling was stigmatised. This young woman wished students could visit a counsellor off the premises to ensure privacy. There were also concerns that anything said to a counsellor would be passed on to teachers or parents. Professor David Penington's report argues against a mandatory reporting approach such as exists in New South Wales because such a requirement undermines the work of school counsellors. Professor Penington was criticised by Senator Tierney today for being permissive. This girl and her friends want to know the real risks of schizophrenia from marijuana use. And she talked of a crisis in self-esteem among kids at the school. She wants to be taught skills to negotiate the world instead of feeling like a passive consumer of education. There is a self-esteem movement of sorts in American schools, and I have been approached by constituents who argue that self-esteem education should be in schools. My only caution is that such education cannot be expected to fill the vacuum created by rising youth unemployment, the cost of further education, the expectation that young people should be dependent on their parents financially until the age of 25 and the general narrowing of life opportunities.This girl also wanted to know what to do in a drug related crisis. She said, `We don't want to be told it's wrong; we want to know how to deal with it.' She described being in a group of friends, one of whom had an adverse reaction to an illegal drug. As her lips turned blue, the rest of the group kept a lid on their panic, hoping she would come to. Luckily, she did, but what would happen if things had turned out differently? Clearly, a just say no approach on its own is not up to these challenges. Obviously we need to reassess punitive attitudes when they get in the way of young people seeking help. This is the principle that is emphasised by Professor Penington's research. We can wring our hands all we like at the idea of 15-year-olds taking drugs, but what are we going to do about it? The National Drug Education Strategy unfortunately seems unrealistic with its aim of no illicit drugs in schools. Mr McConnell from Family and Friends for Drug Law Reform notes: Our most secure institutions, gaols, do not stop inmates from obtaining or using drugs. It is therefore unrealistic for less secure institutions such as schools to be able to do it. What do we do about those kids who instead of saying no just say yes? Risk taking is a part of adolescence. It is unfortunate that the palette of substances available these days is so much more varied. Inevitably, some children will experiment with drugs. For some it will just be a phase, and for others it will be just the start of their problems. I think we must also acknowledge that children growing up in abusive homes will often turn to drugs to mask their suffering. Schools can be the lifeline for children in such circumstances. We must not turn them into yet another agent of punishment. Professor Penington has warned that expulsion increases the risk of children moving to harder drugs and addiction. The overriding aim of any strategy, he says, is to keep children at school. In April, the Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, told the National Press Club:What sort of message do they get if you just say throw them out so they're denied education? If you're talking about users, I'd much rather know who they are and help them rather than piling further pressures on their shoulders and ridicule and just throwing them back to their parents who in most cases won't have known their child was taking drugs or won't be able to handle it because they themselves don't know enough about the issue.We need to listen to young people's stories about drugs and accept that even very young people may have their own stories. Perhaps we need to defer judgment as we listen to those stories and perhaps we need to come up with more questions than statements.733319:43:007333Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—A matter of significant concern to all of us who care deeply about the direction in which Australia is heading is the growing disparity in living conditions between those who live in rural and regional areas of Australia and those who live in our cities. The Howard government has achieved much in its first and second terms to get the macro settings right for all Australians irrespective of where they live. I refer briefly to the reduction of the budget deficit, historically low inflation and interest rates, employment coming down at least in the cities, industrial relations reforms and restructuring and, as we are about to see, a new tax system that should be of great benefit to regional Australia.These achievements are very important in making Australia economically viable both for job and wealth creation and for prosperity for the people. However, it is apparent to me and indeed many others that there are substantial differences in living standards in some parts of Australian society, that there are some Australians who have less opportunity to better themselves than others. Unfortunately, over successive decades rural and regional Australia has found itself increasingly disenfranchised from the overall prosperity of our nation.As someone born and bred in the country, the concerns of regional Australia have always been a focus of my attention. During the last parliamentary recess, I conducted the first of a number of regional visits in my home state of New South Wales. It was a fact-finding mission, if you like, designed to better understand the day-to-day difficulties which people living outside the metropolitan areas face. Over a period of two weeks I met with local community groups in Cowra, Young, Eden, Bega, Cooma, the Southern Highlands, Armidale, Tamworth, Maitland, Newcastle and on the Central Coast. In Eden and Cooma I was joined by my friend and colleague Senator Bill Heffernan.I met with representatives from a number of primary industries—poultry, pork, dairy and lamb—as well as stone fruit and vegetable producers and croppers. I met with employers and employees in small and medium sized businesses, largely those involved in manufacturing and food processing. I met with local councillors of all political persuasions, all of them—like their city counterparts—struggling to provide the best possible service to their constituents, but—unlike their city counterparts—struggling to overcome the relative tyranny of distance when providing services for a dwindling and sparsely settled population. What struck me most of all was that I had been reintroduced to a breed of Australian quite different from the city folk, a breed made more resilient due to ongoing hardship. They were filled with self-determination.What also struck me—and struck me hard—is that successive governments at both a state and federal level have let regional Australia down by failing to develop a coherent strategy to identify the opportunities for regional growth. The need for such a strategy is great. The social and economic indicators of regional Australia are profoundly atypical from the national average. I mention higher than average levels of unemployment, lower than average weekly income, higher than average rates of increasing drug abuse and higher than average rates of adult suicide, with youth suicide, perhaps the most tragic statistic of all, up to 13 times the national average. Indeed, the day I arrived in Eden some of the people I was meeting with were forced to leave early to go to the funeral of a young mother who had killed herself following the loss of her job at the Eden tuna cannery.Access to health, education and community services is also far more limited in non-metropolitan areas, with up to a two-month waiting list for a consultation with a GP. Just to give the Senate some idea of what this really means, when I was in Armidale I was advised that the one doctor permitted to prescribe methadone to patients participating in the methadone program was retiring in six weeks time—and that doctor was in Tamworth. No replacement has been found, which means that patients will be forced to go to Grafton for the nearest doctor able to prescribe their treatment. These are people obviously in a very fragile state who are trying to stabilise a drug habit. Since each treatment lasts only eight weeks, patients will be required to make a seven- to eight-hour round journey every two months just to remain on the methadone program. Considering the rate of drug abuse is high in regional Australia and that drug related crime in regional Australia has reached unprecedented levels, such poor access to health services will only exacerbate the problem.Finally, in political terms 33 of the 37 poorest federal electorates in Australia are rural. However, despite the obvious social and economic difficulties that the groups I met faced, not one of them would ever have accepted a hand-out. That really was not what they wanted. What they did want, however, was a hand up. There have been innumerable studies carried out on the problems in regional Australia and many constructive proposals have been made to address the problems. The problems are well known but comprehensive solutions are more elusive. Whilst the marvellous economic record of the Howard government has benefits for all, the trickle down effect is slow to reach many rural areas.The government has sought to address the loss of services in the bush with good programs, such as Networking the Nation, and also rural transaction centres and rural traineeships for doctors. One of the complaints I encountered when meeting local communities was the perception that competition policy had unfairly impacted on small communities, causing the loss of jobs and leaving small towns with a limited choice of essential services. In Cooma, Woolworths bought out its only competitor, with price rises and scaled down hours of operation the unfortunate, if inevitable, result. Whilst it must be said that just about every ill that faces rural Australia is blamed unfairly and selectively on competition policy, it is probably right that the benefits of competition do impact unevenly and that some rural communities are thus adversely affected.Restructuring the farm cannot be done overnight. As was so succinctly pointed out to me in Cowra, a lingerie factory can change the colour of its dye in one run. To change a strain of crops and livestock takes at least one season and quite often several. Furthermore, in Tamworth it was pointed out that changing from cattle to sheep required changes to more than just the type of livestock: in order to maintain the new stock, differently configured yards have to be built, making initial start-up costs quite extensive.Often typified as whingeing cockies, the bush is worth saving. For anyone in doubt, an interesting fact to ponder is that only seven per cent of Australians actually live and produce from the land and this mere seven per cent in fact feeds the remaining 93 per cent of our population. What was so abundantly clear from my visits is that rural and regional Australia has the capacity to regenerate itself as long as the conditions are right. Revitalising rural Australia requires at least five major coordinates.I have referred to the macro settings. I have referred to the need to return facilities to the bush and I have also referred to the need to make sure that the benefits of competition are distributed equitably. Far too often we have not taken account of the socioeconomic impact of competition in restructuring packages that make an industry much more efficient. It also requires superior telecommunication facilities and a good skills base for our youth. Then what is required, which is the really the most difficult part, is a coordinated regional development policy. The role of government is not to impose top-down solutions but to resource communities to find their own solutions, to identify what the community is good at and what resources it has to deploy into growing viable businesses and to create new jobs.Obviously, government has a role to provide adequate transport, energy and access to water. All these things of course are vital to regional Australia. Clearly, one size does not fit all regions. Very different circumstances apply in different areas of New South Wales and throughout Australia. However, as a senator for New South Wales, I am totally committed to understanding the concerns of my country constituents so that their needs and concerns can be better reflected in the policy process.733519:52:007335Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I would like to comment on a very disturbing report that was released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That report was entitled Health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples . It was released by both the ABS and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The contents of that report have been labelled by a number of Aboriginal leaders, health workers, welfare workers and politicians as a national shame.I will briefly go through some of the statistics that this report highlighted which, as the nation's leaders, we need to take into account in our policy deliberations. Aborigines represent only 2.1 per cent of Australia's population. Their median age is only 20 years, whereas that of the rest of the population is 34 years. This difference between median ages is no doubt due to the fact that their life expectancy is much less than that of the rest of the Australian community.In terms of post-secondary education, the figures are 31 per cent of non-indigenous Australians and only 11 per cent of Aborigines. In terms of adult male unemployment, nine per cent of adult male Australians are unemployed, yet 27 per cent of adult male Aborigines are unemployed. In terms of home ownership or purchasing a home, 71 per cent of non-indigenous Australians are in that category, whereas only 31 per cent of Aborigines are. These problems have been highlighted by this report and, as I said, as the nation's leaders, it is up to us to try to find some solutions.During the winter break I accompanied the shadow minister for education, Michael Lee, to a meeting with the Board of Governors of the University of Notre Dame in Broome in Western Australia. We were exposed to a different way of how we in the Labor Party—I am sure this view is shared by the government—could deal with this difficulty by starting at the beginning with that great equaliser education. At the University of Notre Dame we met committed people. They had come from all over Australia and from the United States to try to come to terms with these problems. Local communities, educators and concerned people from around the country had come together to try to offer solutions to alleviate this suffering and to try to assist people to triumph over it.We have all heard the phrase `to fix the problem not to blame'. I think a number of people in our country have tried to blame Aborigines for the state they are in. It is very comforting, particularly in adverse times, to find a scapegoat and to blame him or her for our difficulties or problems. In Broome we have a good example in the local communities of the cultural problems which are, as I am sure a number of people know, very different from what we know as non-indigenous Australians, but these people are trying to overcome them.During my visit I found out that it is very difficult for indigenous people to uproot and to leave their communities and relocate to any sort of learning institution. It is particularly difficult for young adult male blacks to do that. The University of Notre Dame is attempting to deal with the fact that these people have entrenched connections with their family, their land and their local community. Those roots are so strong that, if they did uproot themselves, it would lead to intolerable social alienation.At Notre Dame I witnessed a flexible and tailored education system that allowed the local Aboriginal communities from the north-west to participate in schemes that allowed them to upgrade themselves so that they could make sure that they were no longer dependent on others, on us, and which gave them pride in raising themselves—as, no doubt, time will allow them to demonstrate. This will not be done in the short term. Changing attitudes is not like changing shirts. It will take time, patience and tolerance from us to assist the communities to lift themselves. I believe that we can do that.Michael and I saw how these people were prepared to get involved in the education system and how they had the courage to participate. If the majority of Australians show compassion and goodwill to these people, I believe that, in one way or another, the Aboriginal people will triumph over the suffering that was demonstrated so clearly, so intolerably and so tragically in the report that was released by the ABS yesterday.Senate adjourned at 7.59 p.m.Documents73367336The following government documents were tabled:Treaties—Bilateral— National interest analysis—Agreement on Social Security between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, done at London on 1 October 1990, as amended on 22 April 1992—Notice of Intention to Terminate. [The text of the Agreement was tabled on 6 November 1990 in the House of Representatives and on 7 November 1990 in the Senate ] Text, together with national interest analysis— Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on Mutual Antitrust Enforcement Assistance, done at Washington on 27 April 1999. Agreement, done at Brussels on 8 July 1999, amending the Agreement Relating to Scientific and Technical Cooperation between Australia and the European Community of 23 February 1994. Text, together with national interest analysis and regulation impact statement— Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Protocol, done at Canberra on 1 July 1999. Protocol, done at Sydney on 2 August 1999, to amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, of 20 August 1980, and Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement to extend the Application of Certain Provisions of Article 23 of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, of 20 August 1980.Multilateral — Text, together with national interest analyses— Food Aid Convention, 1999, done at London on 13 April 1999. Fourth Amendment, done at Hong Kong on 23 September 1997, of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund of 27 December 1945. New [Second] Revised Text of the International Plant Protection Convention of 6 December 1951, done at Rome on 17 November 1997. Text, together with national interest analysis and regulation impact statement— Agreement, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, concerning the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the basis of these Prescriptions, as amended with effect from 10 November 1967 and 16 October 1995.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption No. CASA 25/1999.Migration Act— Declaration under section 33, dated 10 June 1999. Statement for period 1 January to 30 June 1999 under section 33.Public Service Act—Foreign Affairs and Trade Determinations 1999/8 and 1999/10.Answers to Questions on Notice7338The following answers to questions were circulated:7338(Question No. 685)6857338O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 21 April 1999:(1) Did a separation breakdown occur at Cairns Airport on 24 March 1999 involving an Aerocommander aircraft and another aircraft on final approach for runway 15.(2) Did the supervisor on duty at Cairns Airport at the time of this incident fail to report to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) within 48 hours as is required by the Air Navigation Act 1920.(3) If the supervisor failed to report the incident, what action was taken by Airservices Australia (ASA) or BASI.(4) Was Cairns air traffic control (ATC) management advised of the incident on the day that it occurred.(5) Did ATC management advise the officer who reported the incident that the matter should not be taken any further.(6) Did Cairns ATC management fail to take any action following the incident until 3 days later when an air safety incident report was submitted by another party.(7) Was any action taken against the ATC responsible for the separation breakdown; if so: (a) what was the nature of the action; and (b) when did it occur.(8) Did ASA undertake an inquiry into the separation breakdown at Cairns Airport on 24 March 1999.(9) (a) Who undertook the investigation; and (b) what qualifications and experience did the investigator bring to the investigation into the separation breakdown.(10) Was the investigator from another ATC unit to ensure there was no potential for local bias in the investigation; if not, why not.(11) (a) What was the outcome of this investigation, and (b) can a copy be provided of the findings and recommendations that resulted from the investigation. 7338Macdonald, 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) Yes. The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) has advised that an Electronic Safety Incident Report (ESIR) was received on 27 March 1999. On the basis of that ESIR, BASI commenced an investigation of the incident and is currently reviewing the appropriate radar and voice tapes. A copy of the final report will be forwarded when completed.(2) Airservices has advised that the supervisor on duty was not in the aerodrome control position at the time and was therefore unable to determine if an incident had occurred. An ESIR was subsequently submitted by the Aerodrome Controller (see 6 below), and BASI has advised the ESIR was received on Saturday, 27 March 1999.(3) BASI has advised that no action was required as an ESIR on the incident was received.Airservices Australia has advised that:(4) The circumstances surrounding a possible breakdown of separation was discussed at a team meeting later on 24 March. It was not possible at that meeting to determine as to whether an incident had occurred.(5) No. The Aerodrome Controller was advised to submit an ESIR if he considered a breakdown in separation had occurred.(6) No, as the responsible Aerodrome Controller submitted an ESIR three days later and this was investigated by Airservices.(7) (a) Yes. The incident was discussed with the controller by the Team Leader. The investigation of the incident showed that the controller acted properly in accordance with established procedures when he observed separation decreasing between the two aircraft.(b) Beginning of April 1999.(8) Yes.(9) (a) The most experienced Cairns Area Terminal Team Leader.(b) The Team Leader has over thirty years air traffic control experience in all facets of Check Control and Standardisation. Also, he had participated in previous investigations. (10) No. the nature of the incident was such that an investigator from another unit was not warranted.(11)(a) The outcome of the investigation was that a brief breakdown of separation had occurred.(b) Yes. The investigator's report and recommendations were inserted into the ESIR report which is circulated within Airservices, BASI and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. A paper on the findings and recommendations has also been provided to the Table Office.7339(Question No. 1010)10107339O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 May 1999:(1) When was the decision taken to investigate possible sites for the construction of a transmission tower near Lilydale in northern Tasmania.(2) (a) When was the decision taken to construct the tower on Browns Mountain; and (b) what processes were followed in determining the best possible site.(3) When did the National Transmission Agency (NTA): (a) apply for permits from the Launceston Council for the construction of the road to the proposed site; and (b) engage a contractor to construct a road to the proposed site.(4) (a) When was construction of the road commenced; (b) when was the work completed; and (c) what was the cost of the work.(5) At what stage were the formal processes and actual construction of the Browns Mountain transmission tower site, when the NTA was privatised.(6) What provisions has the Government made to ensure the Browns Mountain transmission tower is completed by a private operator.7339Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Lilydale area was identified as likely to require translator facilities during planning for Band II Clearance in 1991. The National Transmission Agency (NTA) began actively considering potential sites for the establishment of the translator in late 1993/early 1994, concurrent with the commencement of ABC TV simulcast UHF transmissions from Mt Barrow, Launceston.(2) (a) The decision to start the process of site acquisition to construct translator facilities at Browns Hill, as it is known, was taken in March 1995. (b) Transmission planning engineers of the NTA determined potential locations for the Lilydale translator using topographical maps, and identified Browns Hill as the only site that could adequately serve Lilydale, Lilydale North, and Underwood. NTA officers then conducted a field survey of the Browns Hill site to ensure adequate signal could be received for retransmission, and to determine the optimal location on the hill for the propagation of the transmitted services.(3) (a) The site, and the access route to the site, were surveyed for leasing and construction purposes in December 1994. Archaeological and flora surveys were conducted at the site and along the proposed access route, in accordance with a request from the Launceston City Council dated 26 February 1996.The Australian Property Group (Department of Administrative Services) advised the NTA on 7 May 1997 that Launceston City Council had given approval for the development and that no development application was required.(b) The NTA did not engage a contractor to construct a road to the proposed site.(4) (a, b & c) The NTA did not construct a road to the proposed site.(5) By 30 April 1999, when the National Transmission Network was sold, the Commonwealth had obtained the approval of Launceston City Council for the project, and had begun negotiations with the registered owner of the land for a lease.However, the land on which the proposed Browns Hill translator is to be located has been subject to legal disputation over its ownership. This prevented the Commonwealth from finalising a lease over the proposed site and the access route. Pending the resolution of ownership issue, the NTA suspended its planning activities and did not begin any construction of the facilities.(6) With the sale of the National Transmission Network on 30 April 1999, the national broadcasters have, for the first time, become responsible for their own transmission arrangements, and are being funded accordingly. It is now the responsibility of the ABC and the SBS to complete the negotiations for access to the site and arrange for the installation of the television services at Lilydale. The Government will provide funding to the ABC and the SBS for the Lilydale services.Officers from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts met with the ABC and the SBS on 7 July 1999 to discuss the steps now to be taken. The national broadcasters are treating the provision of these services as a high priority, and will obtain the necessary technical and costing information to enable the planning and implementation to commence. 7340(Question No. 1096)10967340O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:With reference to the answer (reference EXEC08(S)) to a question taken on notice during additional estimates supplementary hearings on 4 May and 6 May 1999, in which the Minister advised that there were no budgets at all for the office of the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp) in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years and that all expenditure for the former Minister's office came out of running costs from the Finance and Services Branch of the department:(1) What was the cost of operating the former Minister's office in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years.(2) What controls were there over expenditure by the former Minister's office during those two financial years.(3) Were monthly statements of expenditure sent to the former Minister's office for verification; if so, who was the officer in the former Minister's office responsible for that task.(4) Did the department acquit all expenditure by the former Minister and his office; if so, are all those records still held by the department.7340Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the senator's question:(1) For 1996-97, the cost to the then Department of Transport and Regional Development of operating former Minister Sharp's office was $178,039.For 1997-98, the cost to the then Department of Transport and Regional Development of operating former Minister Sharp's office was $71,764.(2) During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years, invoices for expenditure incurred by former Minister Sharp were processed by the Department if marked by the Minister or one of his staff as being `OK to pay' or `Goods/Services Received'. The decision to spend appropriated funds on ministerial office operations is at the discretion of the Minister. Invoices relating to payments by the then Department of Administrative Services were redirected, as appropriate.(3) No.(4) The department acquitted all expenditure that came within the responsibility of the portfolio; yes. 7340(Question No. 1097)10977340O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) Did the office of the former Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) have a specific budget; if so, how long had this arrangement been in place; if not, why not.(2) If there were no budgets in place for the former Parliamentary Secretary's office, was funding drawn from running costs from the Finance and Services Branch of the department.(3) What was the cost of operating the former Parliamentary Secretary's office in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years.(4) What controls were there over expenditure by the former Parliamentary Secretary's office during those two financial years.(5) Were monthly statements of expenditure sent to the former Parliamentary Secretary's office for verification ; if so, who was the officer in the former Parliamentary Secretary's office responsible for this task.(6) Did the department acquit all expenditure by the former Parliamentary Secretary and his office; if so, are all those records still held by the department.7340Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the senator's question:(1) No. There was no need to introduce one.(2) Yes.(3) For 1996-97, the cost to the then Department of Transport and Regional Development of operating the office of the former Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) was $42,855.For 1997-98, the cost to the then Department of Transport and Regional Development of operating the office of the former Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) was $51,225.(4) During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years, invoices for expenditure incurred by former Parliamentary Secretary Ronaldson were processed by the Department if marked by him or one of his staff as being `OK to pay' or `Goods/Services Received'. The decision to spend appropriated funds on his office's operations was at the discre tion of the Parliamentary Secretary, within the framework of the authority given by the Minister. Invoices relating to payments by the then Department of Administrative Services were redirected, as appropriate.(5) No.(6) The department acquitted all expenditure that came within the responsibility of the portfolio; yes.7341(Question No. 1098)10987341O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) Did the office of the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) have a specific budget; if so, how long was this arrangement in place; if not, why not.(2) If there were no budgets in place for the former Minister's office was funding drawn from running costs from the Finance and Services Branch of the department.(3) What was the cost of operating the former Minister's office in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(4) What controls were there over expenditure by the former Minister's office during those two financial years.(5) Were monthly statements of expenditure sent to the former Minister's office for verification; if so, who was the officer in the former Minister's office responsible for this task.(6) Did the department acquit all expenditure by the former Minister and his office; if so, are all those records still held by the department.7341Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the senator's question:(1) No. There was no need to introduce one.(2) Yes.(3) For 1997-98, the cost to the then Department of Transport and Regional Development of operating the office of the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Vaile, was $149,904.For 1998-99, the cost to the then Department of Transport and Regional Development of operating the office of the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Vaile, was $70,924.(4) During the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years, invoices for expenditure incurred by former Minister Vaile were processed by the Department if marked by the Minister or one of his staff as being `OK to pay' or `Goods/Services Received'. The decision to spend appropriated funds on ministerial office operations is at the discretion of the Minister. Invoices relating to payments by the then Department of Administrative Services were redirected, as appropriate.(5) Yes; the statements were addressed to the then Minister's Chief of Staff, Mr Chris Falvey.(6) The department acquitted all expenditure that came within the responsibility of the portfolio; yes.7341(Question No. 1102)11027341O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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.7341Macdonald, 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:The attached table provides the answers to questions (1), (2) and (3).(1)(2)(2) continued(3)Name of Program/ Grant Administered by the Department of Transport and Regional ServicesFunding for 1997-98 (actual amounts)Funding for 1998-99 (estimates unless otherwise indicated)Appropriation for1999-2000Financial Assistance Grants (including identified local road grants) $9,637,521$10,031,621Allocations have not yet been determined, but would be of the same magnitude as for 1998-99Tamar River Environs Project $500,000Local Government Development Program(LGDP) *$90,000$94,000Inveresk Railyards Redevelopment Project$3,435,793$1,659,213(actual)Rural Communities Program$85,393$140,940(actual)$144,840LGDP—Statewide projects *$340,000$176,000Rail Reform Transition Program *$330,000Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme *$41.4m$41.8m$56.4mBass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme *$12.94m$14.8m$11.2mExport Gateways Initiative: Tasmanian Export Council *Nil$120,000Allocation has not yet been determined.* The program/grant is likely to provide assistance to people living in Bass but the exact level of assistance is unable to be disaggregated from the program budget. (ie the program/grant assists the greater Tasmanian community, not just the electorate of Bass).7342(Question No. 1104)11047342O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.7342Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts administers a number of programs and/or grants which can (or have) assist(ed) people living in the federal electorate of Bass, including:The Government makes an annual grant to the Community Broadcasting Foundation Ltd (CBF). The CBF is an independent company established by the community broadcasting sector to allocate the annual grant to community broadcasters. Community radio stations in the Bass electorate would be eligible to apply to the CBF for funding. Networking the Nation, the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund, has provided assistance to benefit people living in the electorate.National Council for the Centenary of Federation administers a History and Education Program. The Program supports activities which encourage Australians to gain a better understanding of the processes that led to Australia's Federation, to reflect on the changes that have taken place in Australia over the past 100 years, and to look ahead to Australia's future as a nation. The Program is open to people and organisations throughout Australia and has provided assistance to benefit people living in the electorate.The Department is administering Commonwealth Government funding assistance to the redevelopment of the historic Launceston railway workshops. Funds are being provided to develop visitor orientation and services facilities as part of the redevelopment program, with further funding being provided under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects (FCHP) program to fund the development of an interpretive gallery and heritage trail. The FCHP is part of the larger $1 billion Federation Fund. It is a $70m program. Applications were sought once and closed on 30 June 1998. 60 projects were chosen and no additional funding is available.Festival organisers from the Bass electorate are eligible to apply to the Commonwealth Government's funding program for regional and community festivals, Festivals Australia, for assistance. Performing arts organisations and eligible not-for-profit organisations may apply to the Commonwealth Government's National Per forming Arts Touring Program, Playing Australia, for assistance. Similarly, eligible non profit organisations may apply to Visions of Australia, the Commonwealth Government's national touring exhibitions program.The National Office for the Information Economy administer the Information Technology Online Program and have two projects being managed by the Tasmanian Electronic Commerce Centre, who are based in Launceston. ITOL is designed to accelerate the national adoption of electronic commerce business solutions, especially by communities of small and medium enterprises.Every electorate in the country has been allocated $200,000 for the Federation Community Projects program. Successful application for funding will be announced in early July 1999.(2) In relation to the electorate of Bass, funding for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years is as follows:CBF: In 1997-98 the CBF made grants valued at $11,099 to community radio stations 7LTN and 7WAY located in the electorate of Bass.In 1998-99 the CBF made grants totalling $16,172 to 7LTN and 7WAY, this included satellite equipment nominally valued at $934.Networking the Nation: Grants totalling $4,731,190 have been provided and an estimated $7,925,568 is being provided which will benefit people living in the electorate. Of these figures, grants totalling $1,520,000 and an estimated $1,700,000 relate to grantees within the electorate.National Council for the Centenary of Federation: 1997-98—Nil1998-99—Grant of $80,000 approved for Queen Victoria Museum and Gallery, Launceston.Launceston Railway Redevelopment:Govt GrantFCHP Program1997/98NilNil1998/99Nil$100,000Touring Arts Programs: Festivals Australia funded two cultural projects at festivals in the Bass electorate in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years:The George Town Folk Club Inc was funded $3,500 for Bluegrass Experience at the Tamar Valley Folk Festival in Georgetown. Bluegrass bands Colcannon and Country Express performed at concerts throughout the January 1999 festival. The artists also conducted a series of guitar, harmony and instrumental arrangement workshops for the Tamar Valley community.Top of the Tamar Regatta was funded $1,650 for Seaweed & Song at the Top of the Tamar Regatta in Georgetown. An arts program, including artists' workshops, theatre and music performances and visual arts displays were introduced to the February 1998 Festival.Playing Australia funded two Launceston-based companies to tour their work in the 1997-98 financial year:Stompin Youth Dance Company was funded $44,122 for a tour of Grind to the first Australian Youth Dance Festival in Darwin in October 1997.Theatre North was funded $9,940, with an additional guarantee against loss of $18,811, for a tour of Private Lives by Melbourne Theatre Company to Hobart, Burnie and Launceston in March 1997; and a tour of Vita and Virginia by Sydney Theatre Company to Hobart and Launceston in September 1997.Visions of Australia—Nil to electorate of BassInformation Technology Online Program:The Multi-Industry Procurement Project is based in the Burnie area and includes the Burnie City Council as one of its members. The project also has participation from a number of mines (Pasminco, Aberfoyle, Renison, Beaconsfield, David Mitchell) and assorted suppliers identified by the council and the mines. The ITOL grant payments for this project is $8,000 in 98-99.The Food and Beverage Procurement Project is based in the Hobart area and includes Wrest Point Casino, Calvary Hospital, Chung Sing Provedores and the Australian Antarctic Division as project members. The ITOL grant payments for this project is $19,200 in 98-99From the information at hand it is not possible to determine the amount of the grant money that will be received by people living in the federal electorate of Bass.Federation Community Projects: None(3) In relation to the electorate of Bass, funding for the 1999-2000 financial year is as follows:CBF: The 1999-2000 grant to the CBF is $4.871m. The community broadcasting stations in the Bass electorate will be eligible to apply for funds during the year.Networking the Nation: Tasmania was allocated $58 million of $250 million Networking the Nation program. Each year, $50m is being appropriated for the NTN trust account.National Council for the Centenary of Federation: Grant payment to Queen Victoria Museum and Gallery of $20,000 due this financial year. Balance of grant funds is due to be paid in financial year 2000-2001.Other funding through the History and Education Program will be dependent on successful applications in the current Round 2 and future rounds of the Program.Launceston Railway Redevelopment:Funding projections for the project for 1999/00 are as follows. As the project is scheduled to continue into 2000/01, estimates for this year have also been included.Govt GrantFCHP Program1999/00$1.5m$600,0002000/01Nil$300,000The redevelopment project is estimated to cost a total of $9.5m.Touring Arts Programs: No announcements have been made to date.Information Technology Online Program: Multi-Industry Procurement Project—the ITOL grant payments for this project is $12,000 in 99-2000.Food and Beverage Procurement Project—the ITOL grant payment for this project is $28,800 in 99-2000.Federation Community Projects: program grant funds will be expended between the 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 financial years. The timing of payments is subject to the availability of funds and negotiation with individual grant recipients.7344(Question No. 1131)11317344Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) What was the total cost of postage provided by the Department to the Minister's Tasmanian office for the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(2) Can a breakdown be provided of the cost by the form of postage used, that is, franking credits, postage stamps or any other Australia Post product.7344Newman, 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 Department of Family and Community Services did not pay any postage costs of the Minister's Tasmanian office for any of the financial years in question.(2) Not applicable. 7344(Question No. 1139)11397344Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) How many complaints were received by the department, and its predecessor, and agencies attached to the department via the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in: (a) the 1997-98 financial year; and (b) the 1998-99 financial year to date.(2) How many of these complaints have been resolved.(3) How many were resolved in favour of the complainant.(4) In how many instances did the Ombudsman make an adverse finding in relation to the department.7344Newman, 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:In answering the honourable Senator's question, the department has sourced information from the Ombudsman's Office to ensure the consistency of data. It should be noted that the Ombudsman's data reflects the number of complaints about specific issues, not the number of complainants. The number of complainants would be less than the number of issues about which complaints have been received.The details of complaints in respect of each of the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99 include data in respect of all functional areas of the current department. The figures reflect, therefore, the number of complaints across the same span of departmental activities for the two financial years in question, although those functions and activities were not amalgamated into the current department until October 1998.(1) The total number of complaints received by the department, and its predecessor, and agencies attached to the department via the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the: (a) 1997-98 financial year was 4,419 and (b) the 1998-99 financial year was 2,951.(2) The number of complaints resolved for the: (a) 1997-98 financial year was 4,410; (b) and the 1998-99 financial year was 2,686.(3) The number of complaints resolved substantially in favour of the complainant for the: (a) 1997-98 financial year was 2,193; and (b) the 1998-99 financial year was 993. The number of complaints resolved partially in favour of the complainant for the: (a) 1997-98 financial year was 2,030; and (b) the 1998-99 financial year was 1,047.(4) During the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 the Ombudsman made one adverse finding in relation to the Child Support Agency.7345(Question No. 1140)11407345Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) How many departmental liaison officers (DLOs) are employed in, or seconded to, the office of the Minister as at 22 June 1999.(2) (a) What are the names of the DLOs; (b) what are their employment classifications; and (c) what duties are they assigned, that is, to which policy areas or agencies are they allocated responsibility.(3) What was the total cost to the Department of these officers.7345Newman, 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) Three.(2) (a) Kylee Bates, Sue Costello and Ian Sharples; (b) FaCS 2; and (c) all DLOs deal with matters relating to all policy areas and agencies within the Family and Community Services portfolio.(3) FaCS 2 officers receive an annual salary in the range of $52,421—$60,265 plus an allowance in lieu of overtime of $11,424. In addition, the Department provides each of these officers with a mobile telephone and the use of equipment in the office (eg. personal computer, printer, photocopier and facsimile machine). 7345(Question No. 1141)11417345Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) (a) Who currently holds the position of the second media officer in the Minister's office; and (b) what duties does that person perform.(2) Does that person perform any media monitoring functions.(3) What is that person's current home base.(4) (a) Who currently holds the position of the personalassistant attached to the additional media officer; (b) what duties does that person perform; and (c) what is this staff member's current home base.(5) What resources are provided by the Department to these two staff members.7345Newman, 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) (a) Simon Bush; (b) Advises media adviser in handling media inquiries on behalf of the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and assists in the dissemination of government information to the media, the public, members and senators.(2) No.(3) Canberra.(4) (a)(b) and (c) There is no such position.(5) The Department provides Mr Bush with a mobile telephone and the use of equipment in the office (eg. personal computer, printer, photocopier and facsimile machine).7345(Question No. 1146)11467345Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) How many applications were received for Act of Grace payments: (a) in the 1997-98 financial year; and (b) in the 1998-99 financial year to date.(2) How many of these applications have been granted.(3) What has been the cost to the Department of the granting of these applications.7345Newman, 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) (a) One; and (b) one(2) One.(3) $227.40 per fortnight from 12 January 1999 onwards.7346(Question No. 1177)11777346O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:(1) What immigration and customs arrangements apply to seafarers on foreign vessels visiting Australian ports.(2) How long can these seafarers remain in Australia.(3) How are the controls that limit the time foreign seafarers can remain in Australia policed.(4) What level of resources was applied to this task in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(5) Since March 1996, how many seafarers from foreign vessels have attempted to remain in Australia.(6) In each case: (a) what was the nationality of each seafarer; and (b) what was the flag of the foreign vessel on which they entered Australia; (c) what was the basis for their application to remain in Australia; and (d) how many applications were successful.7346Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Under Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Migration Regulations, crew of non-military vessels must hold an identity document or passport for entry into Australia. They have a prescribed status under regulation 2.40 and are taken to hold Special Purpose Visas (SPVs) under section 33 of the Migration Act 1958.Under regulation 2.40 (6), a non-citizen is taken to be member of crew of a non-military vessel and hold a special purpose visa if the vessel on which he/she travel as crew:(a) enters Australia at:(i) a proclaimed port; or(ii) a port other than a proclaimed port, if permission for it to do so has been given in advance by the Australian Customs Service under section 58 of the Customs Act 1901;(b) will depart Australia to a place outside Australia during the course of the voyage.Under regulation 2.40 (7), crew members signing off for repatriation from Australia can be permitted to stay up to 30 days with SPVs (in practice, they are given 5 working days to leave) on the basis that the master, owner, agent or charterer of the vessel provides a letter of guarantee that the person will leave Australia within that period.Crew members who sign off with the intention of remaining in Australia (eg for holiday or other purposes) must hold an appropriate visa before travelling to Australia as crew, or must apply at a DIMA office in Australia, after signing off, for an appropriate visa.(2) A seafarer can remain in Australia as long as he/she remains a member of the crew of a non-military vessel (under regulation 2.40(6)) during the course of the vessel's voyage.(3) Crew of foreign vessels must comply with the conditions of their SPV and leave Australia, as provided in regulation 2.40(6). Masters of foreign vessels are required to report any crew desertion as soon as possible before their vessels leave Australia. Foreign crew who desert their vessels will automatically become unlawful non-citizen and will be subject to detention and removal.(4) Not available. There is no specific resource allocation for compliance activities in respect of foreign seafarers.(5) My department does not collect statistics on seafarers who apply to remain in Australia. Statistics are collected on seafarers who desert their vessels in Australia and become unlawful non-citizens. Between March 1996 and 30 April 1999, 263 ship deserters were reported by the Australian Customs Service. Of the 148 who were located, 53 applied to remain in Australia.(6) (a) The 53 applicants were from the following nationalities:3 PRCH (China), 1 Hong Kong, 1 Portugal, 11 Turkey, 2 Fiji, 2 Bangladesh, 2 Egypt, 7 Iran, 1 Algeria, 2 former USSR, 1 Romania, 1 Yugoslavia, 1 UK and 18 stateless;(b) they are recorded on the basis of their nationalities only;(c) 5 applied under parent and spouse provisions; 8 under general residence, prospective marriage, change in circumstance and family residence provisions, and 40 applied for refugee status.(d) 17 were approved.