1999-08-123914SENATE734701999-08-12The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.734710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:73477610000 5F4The PRESIDENT; Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament of Australia.The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia requests that the Members of the Senate act to make it illegal for those who are openly homosexual to teach our children.Children are great imitators, with parents and teachers becoming role models. All normal children go through a latency period when they have no interest at all in the opposite sex. The presence of a teacher who is openly homosexual would cause a child in this stage to think he was also a homosexual, even if the teacher was not actively trying to influence the child.Homosexuality should never be presented to children as `normal'. If it was normal the human race could not have survived.Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate act to protect our children.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.The PresidentUNKNOWNThe President(from nine citizens)Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 67 citizens)734725695F4Calvert Sen PaulTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned calls on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the Somerville catchment area be provided with an additional pharmacy on the eastern side of town to supply a service that currently does not exist and consequently is causing inconvenience and hardship to a large proportion of the population, particularly the elderly.Senator Calvert5F4Senator Calvert(from 2,569 citizens)Petitions received.Notices73477347Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:(a) That the Senate notes the result of the Australian Women's Hockey team in defeating Scotland 2-0 in their test series. The Hockeyroos won the first test 8-2 and the second 5-0; and(b) That the Senate recognises this achievement by congratulating the Australian Women's Hockey Team on this wonderful result.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Allison, that notice of motion may be out of order, but we will have a look at it.Notice subsequently ruled out of order by the President pursuant to standing order 76.734709:32:007347Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for two sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Airports (Building Control) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 52 and made under the Airports Act 1996. I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—On 26 May 1999 the former Chairman, former Senator O'Chee, reported to the Senate on the committee's concerns with the regulations which related to subjective discretions, a lack of the usual safeguards, an apparently unreasonable time within which an infringement notice must be served and a discretion with no indication whether it was subject to independent merits review. The minister has now provided the committee with information which meets our concerns. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning the regulations.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Airports (Building Control) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1) Statutory Rules 1999 No.5213 May 1999The Hon John Anderson MPMinister for Transport and Regional ServicesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Airports (Building Control) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.1), Statutory Rules 1999 No.52, which set up an infringement notice regime.New subregulation 5.03(3) gives to the airport building controller the power subjectively to assess whether an infringement notice may contain information other than that referred to in subregulation 5.03(2). However, there is no safeguard that the information must be reasonably considered necessary.New subregulation 5.03(4) allows an infringement notice to be served on a person at any time up to 12 months after the alleged commission of the offence. There is no indication in the Explanatory Statement of the reasons for this lengthy period. A delay of up to 12 months before serving a notice appears to be a breach of personal rights.New paragraph 5.06(5)(e) gives to the Secretary of the Department the power subjectively to determine which matters are relevant in deciding whether to withdraw an infringement notice. There appears to be no requirement that the matters to which the Secretary may have regard must be reasonably considered relevant.The effect of new subparagraph 5.14(b)(ii) is that, if the Secretary decides to withdraw an infringement notice after it has been served, withdrawal may expose the alleged offender to prosecution for the alleged offence. However, the Secretary's decision to withdraw the notice may be based solely on the Secretary's view that, in all the circumstances it is proper to do so (subregulation 5.06(1)). Such decisions do not appear to be subject to any right of review, despite the fact that the Secretary's decision to refuse to withdraw a notice is reviewable (item 20 in the Table to new regulation 6.01).The Committee would be grateful for your advice.Yours sincerelyBill O'CheeChairmanThe Hon John Anderson MPMinister for Transport and Regional ServicesSenator Bill O'CheeChairmanStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator O'CheeThank you for your letter of 13 May 1999 concerning the Airports (Building Control) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1), Statutory Rules 1999 No 52 (the Building Regulations).I note that your letter queries several items in the aforementioned amendment to the Building Regulations.The amendment to the Building Regulations sets up an infringement notice regime that is modelled on a standard infringement notice regime developed in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. In particular, the regime is substantially similar to one found in the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations (the Environment Regulations), which was considered by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in 1997.I refer to your letter of 26 March 1997 (cttee/53/97) to John Sharp, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development that outlined your concerns with the infringement regime provided for in the Environment Regulations. I refer also to the reply from John Sharp to you of 23 April 1997 addressing those concerns and the subsequent amendment to the Environment Regulations infringement regime made by the Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1997 No. 112. I note that you subsequently replied to Mr Sharp on 12 May 1997 expressing your satisfaction with the advice of the then Minister.When drafting the regime for the Building Regulations, the existing regime found in the Environment Regulations was used as a model on the basis that it was a regime approved by your committee. I acknowledge your concerns in relation to the amendment to the Building Regulations but I am advised that as the amendment was drafted in accordance with standard and approved procedures, it does not require further amendment.Notwithstanding this fact, I have considered your suggestions in relation to the Building Regulations infringement regime and offer the following advice.Subregulation 5.03(3) provides that an infringement notice may contain any additional information that the Airport Building Controller (ABC) considers necessary. This information is in addition to mandatory information required by subregulation 5.03(2) that among other things states details of the alleged offence and outlines the rights of the person served in relation to the notice. The additional information that the ABC can require does not have the status of a condition and has no effect on the rights of the person served. It merely allows the ABC to provide or request further background information in relation to the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.Subregulation 5.03(4) provides for an infringement notice to be served on a person at any time up to 12 months after the alleged commission of the offence. I am advised that this length of time reflects the general period of time allowed for the prosecution of offences against Commonwealth laws. For example, subsection 15B(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 provides that the prosecution of an individual for an offence that does not carry a maximum penalty of more than 6 months imprisonment can be commenced at any time within one year after the commission of the offence.I am advised that in the case of the Building Regulations the 12 month period of time is necessary to enable an ABC to make a decision under subregulation 5.03(1). Under subregulation 5.03(1) the ABC has to carry out full investigations of the building approval and/or certification process at leased federal airports to satisfy him or herself that there are reasonable grounds for believing the person has committed an offence. As a person can always elect to dispute the notice and go to trial, the ABC would need to ensure he or she had a good case before issuing the infringement notice. In such cases it can take considerable time to collect the evidence needed to satisfy the ABC.Subregulation 5.06(5) outlines the factors the Secretary must take into account when deciding whether to withdraw an infringement notice. Paragraph 5.06(5)(e) allows the Secretary to take into account any other matter he or she considers relevant to the decision. I am advised that the principles of administrative law impose on the Secretary the requirement to exercise this power in a reasonable manner, and that the paragraph 5.06(5)(e) is drafted in a standard way to reflect this.Subparagraph 5.14(b)(ii) provides that nothing will affect the liability of a person to be prosecuted for an alleged offence if an infringement notice is served and withdrawn. A notice can be withdrawn under subregulation 5.06(1) if the Secretary considers it proper to do so and this decision to withdraw a notice is not subject to any right of review. I am advised that the purpose of the infringement notice regime as outlined in regulation 5.02 is to provide an alternative to full prosecution. If the Secretary considers that a full prosecution is warranted and that it is proper to withdraw an infringement notice then he or she is fully entitled to do so. The alleged offender will then be subject to the curial process and will be protected by the full rights for alleged offenders that the law pro vides for. Exposing an alleged offender to full prosecution in no way compromises the rights of alleged offenders to a fair trial, and the Commonwealth always reserves the right to prosecute alleged offenders in courts of law.Should you require further background on the above matters I would be happy for Departmental officers to provide a briefing.Yours sincerelyJohn Anderson2 June 19997349Senator Mackay to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 September 1999:The development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway, with particular reference to:(a) whether the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) failed to adequately investigate all runway options, including the adequacy of the BAC's methodology for evaluating runway options, including the economic, social (for example, comparative numbers of households affected by noise), environmental, public health and public safety impacts of each;(b) whether the BAC failed to release flight path information to the community and, if so, why;(c) the role of Airservices Australia and any conflict of interest which may exist between its BAC consultancy role and its obligation to provide advice to government;(d) the adequacy of public consultation undertaken by the BAC; and(e) why the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Mr Anderson) proceeded to endorse the BAC Master Plan.Business73497349Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. this day.No. 2— Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 No. 3— Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999No.— Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 —Second reading speeches onlyNo. 4— Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999No. 5— Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999No. 6— Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999No. 7— War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999No. 8— Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 19997350Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports and government responses not be proceeded with today.Committees735073507350Motion (by Senator Coonan, at the request of Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 be extended to 23 August 1999.Notices73507350Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the disallowance of certain instruments under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 , postponed till 24 August 1999.General business notice of motion no. 144 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the 50th anniversary of the Chinese invasion of Tibet, postponed till 8 December 1999.General business notice of motion no. 147 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to human rights abuses in China and Tibet, postponed till 8 December 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till the next day of sitting.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, relating to the disallowance of the Amendment of section 95.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders, dated 20 April 1999, and made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, postponed till 23 August 1999.Miscellaneous7350Motion (by Senator Woodley)—as amended by leave—agreed to: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 steps to rectify the current disadvantage suffered by indigenous people.Committees735073507350Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to: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 com mittee, and, if so, whether a contempt was committed in that regard.73517351Motion (by Senator Coonan, at the request of Senator Chapman) agreed to: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 .Miscellaneous7351Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the range of Y2K compliance concerns relating to the large interlocked computer complexes that constitute the intelligence collection, warning, command and control systems for the nuclear forces of nuclear weapons states, (ii) concerns as to the Y2K readiness of the computerised nuclear command and control systems and the risk, albeit low, of nuclear accidents, and (iii) that, in 1996, the Canberra Commission, the United Nations and many other international organisations recommended that all nuclear forces be taken off hair-trigger alert, preferably by physical separation of the warheads from delivery vehicles; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to continue to encourage the efforts being made by the nuclear weapons states to develop measures to eliminate any risk of the accidental use of nuclear weapons.Business73517351Motion (by Senator Ellison, at the request of Senator Ian Macdonald) agreed to:(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. Miscellaneous7351Motion (by Senator O'Brien) put: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 1999.09:45:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)37Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.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.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.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.32Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.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. 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.Bishop, T. M. Campbell, I. G.Crowley, R. A. Chapman, H. G. P.Gibbs, B. Calvert, P. H.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Notices73527352Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 260 standing in the name of Senator Murphy for today, relating to the importation of uncooked and partly processed salmon product into Australia, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees73527352735210000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I present the annual report for 1998-99 of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing.Ordered that the report be printed.7352735209:48:007352Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I present the interim report of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy. Ordered that the report be printed.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.In July 1998 the Senate established the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy. That committee lapsed at the end of the last parliament. In March the Senate agreed to re-establish the committee with slightly different terms of reference. Those terms of reference required the committee to examine the socio-economic consequences of national competition policy, including its benefits and costs, in relation to unemployment, changed working conditions, social welfare, equity, social dislocation, environmental impacts, the impact on urban and rural and regional communities, its relationship with microeconomic reform policies, and the clarification of the definition of public interest and its role in the national competition process.The committee's inquiry has stimulated considerable interest within the community. The committee has received over 200 submissions from a broad range of groups—from individuals, national organisations, state and local governments and from both urban and rural areas. To date, the committee has held hearings in Canberra, Brisbane, Perth, Albany, Melbourne and Adelaide. During its hearings, the committee also took evidence from rural areas via telephone links.The committee has decided to table an interim report at this stage for two main reasons. Firstly, it has identified a wide range of issues about which it is seeking further information. The committee hopes that this interim report will help to stimulate further interest and give more focus to these future discussions. Secondly, the policy is generating significant debate within the community, and the committee hopes to contribute to that debate. There are several other inquiries into various issues affecting aspects of national competition policy under way at present as part of this debate. The committee sees this interim report as a way of stimulating discussion on the broader issues relating to national competition policy, without overlapping significantly on these other inquiries.The evidence the committee has received, as reflected in its report, is very disturbing. While the committee found wide support for the objectives of the policy, there is significant concern in the community about how it is being implemented. National competition policy has been used as a fire and forget policy. There has been no real oversight of the National Competition Council since COAG agreed to the program in 1996. The way the policy is being implemented is causing hardship and concern, particularly in rural and regional Australia. A number of areas of concern have been identified to the committee in the evidence received to date. Firstly, the policy is being implemented on a one size fits all basis and is lacking in the sensitivity and flexibility needed when significant changes are being implemented.There has been a predominantly economic rather than multidisciplinary approach to the implementation of the policy, particularly in the way the public interest test has been applied. There has been a lack of consistency in the way the public interest test is applied in different jurisdictions. There is a lack of hard data on the costs and benefits of national competition policy. The public should not be expected to take on trust the benefits of this policy. There is a lack of transparency in the way in which reviews of industries and legislation have been conducted. There is concern that the policy is being applied to areas which have not been targeted as priority areas and where there are very low potential returns from such a policy. Community welfare services supported by volunteer workers are concerned that the policy will be applied to their area without sufficient regard for all of the potential ramifications.There is a perception in regional Australia that the policy is being applied in a blind manner driven more by the desire for treasuries to secure the payments agreed under the 1995 COAG agreement than for public or community benefit. Very little assistance is being provided to local governments to help them understand the policy and implement it. Very little assistance is being provided to help individuals, industries and communities which are adversely affected by the implementation of this policy as well.The policy has been the subject of much confusion. The effects of the policy are often confused with the effects of other aspects of micro-economic reform. In some cases, it is being used as an excuse for the implementation of other unpopular policies. This confusion highlights the failure to adequately explain the policy to the public or, in many cases, to those involved in implementing it. The cumulative effect of changing technology, changing infrastructure provision, national competition policy and other micro-economic reforms on rural and regional Australia is creating significant social pressures, and it is apparent that the impact in the bush has been greater than in the cities. These are not bipartisan political views; the interim report is a unanimous report supported by members of all four parties represented on the committee. The committee is interested to receive new submissions and supplementary responses to this interim report. Further hearings are scheduled. If there is sufficient interest, the committee will conduct public hearings in a number of regional centres before the inquiry concludes and the final report is submitted to the Senate. The committee is required to present its final report on or before 11 October 1999.Before concluding my remarks, I would like to thank Senator Lightfoot for the support he has given me as deputy chair—and, before him, Senator Winston Crane—and the other committee members during this and the preceding parliament for their diligence and the cooperative approach that they have brought to the inquiry. I would also like to acknowledge the role of former Senator Dee Margetts in establishing this inquiry and jointly moving with Senator Peter Cook the original motion in the Senate that led to the committee's establishment. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the staff of the committee's office, who have performed every task above and beyond the call of duty, including the preparation of what I think is an excellent report.09:55:007354West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills7354r7867354Bill received from the House of Representatives.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.735409:56:007354Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Employment, Education and Training Act 1988 established the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (or NBEET) to provide the then Minister with independent advice on employment, education and training.As well as establishing the NBEET, the act established the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Australian Research Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Higher Education Council and the Schools Council which all report to the Minister through the NBEET. The Board and Councils are supported by a series of committees.In our 1996 policy statement on higher education, Quality, diversity and choice, we announced our intention to abolish the NBEET and establish independent Councils to advise on higher education and research. This bill is the first step in that process.The NBEET was established to advise on the policies and priorities of the previous government. This Government sees the need for different consultative mechanisms focussing on post-secondary education and training needs. Our preference is for advice to flow directly to the Minister. Current arrangements instead have specialist advice being filtered through the NBEET, rather than flowing directly. The bill therefore provides for the abolition of the NBEET, the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council, and the Higher Education Council. The Australian Research Council will continue as an independent council reporting directly to the Minister.I move now to the major provision of the bill.The NBEET, the Australian Language and Literacy Council, the Employment and Skills Council, the Schools Council and the Higher Education Council will cease to exist when this legislation is proclaimed. The Australian Research Council will continue, with its membership unchanged. It will provide advice to the Minister on matters already referred to it by the Minister. Any committees currently established to serve the Council will continue with their existing membership.Under the previous legislation the NBEET had functions which included and extended the work of each of the Councils. Those functions of the NBEET which related to the work of the Australian Research Council will now continue as functions of the Council in its own right.Previously, advice and reports from the Councils were filtered through the NBEET before going to the Minister. In line with the Government's intention to create more independent councils, this bill will enable the advice of the ARC to now flow directly to the Minister. The ARC will report to the Minister annually on its operations, as has been the requirement on the NBEET, and this report will also be tabled.Other amendments in the bill go to administrative matters including removing definitions no longer required under the act and retaining the position of Director to service the ARC. There are also transitional provisions to provide for continuity of membership of the ARC, and the counsellors and committees which assist it.The financial impact of the bill will be minimal.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Bills7354r8977354Bill received from the House of Representatives.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.735509:57:007355Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—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—I place before the Senate the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999.As a proposed law for amendment of the Constitution, the bill will need to be approved at a referendum under section 128 of the Constitution to take effect. The Government proposes to present the proposed preamble as a second question with the referendum question on whether Australia should become a republic.The Government's aims in introducing the bill were eloquently stated in the second reading speech delivered by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 11 August 1999. I do not need to restate them.It is appropriate, however, to set out in full for the Senate, the terms of the proposed preamble:With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;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;recognising the nation-building contributions of generations of immigrants;mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.Australia's Constitution includes no preamble or statement about the development of Australia into a fully independent nation with a distinctive national character.The act of the United Kingdom Parliament which legally established our Constitution does, of course, include a preamble.It is an interesting piece of history and provides as follows:Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen.It contains no reference to the people of Western Australia. Western Australia agreed to join before federation occurred on 1 January 1901, but after the passage of the Constitution Act.The existing preamble reflects the age in which it was written—both in terms of style and content.Now, one hundred years later, it is entirely appropriate that the Australian people have the opportunity to consider a contemporary preamble for our own Constitution.The Government's proposal is for a contemporary preamble which will form part of the Constitution proper. It is not an amendment of the existing preamble, which will remain in the Constitution as a statement of historical fact.The preamble issue came to prominence in the debates of the Constitutional Convention in February 1998. While the Convention considered the issue in the context of change to a republican form of government, the two issues do not need to be linked.Change to a republic does not necessarily involve the inclusion of a new preamble. Nor should consideration of a new preamble be seen only as part of a broader change. The issue deserves consideration in its own right, and has attracted enormous interest since the Constitutional Convention.The Government will present the preamble question as an entirely separate question at the referendum. Amendments to the Referendum Machinery Provisions Act 1984 have already been passed by the Parliament to enable the two questions to be presented on separate ballot papers of different colours.The Convention identified a number of elements which might be covered in a new preamble, and the form of words now proposed by the Government stands well against the Convention's suggestions.In line with the recommendation of the Convention, the proposed preamble begins with the statement: "we the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution"—a powerful statement of the sovereignty of the Australian people.The proposed preamble includes a measured reference to "God", as well as recognition of our federal system of government, the rule of law and the objective of equality of opportunity for all.It also includes a sincere acknowledgment of the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their cultures and relationship with the land.There are strong references to cultural diversity and the contributions made by immigrants to Australia's development. There is a strong reference to our responsibility for the protection of the natural environment.The inclusion of a tribute to those who made sacrifices in time of war was not among the Convention recommendations, but must surely have the support of all Australians.The Convention was particularly concerned that care be taken to draft the preamble in such a way that it does not have implications for the interpretation of the Constitution. It recommended an express statement in the Constitution that the preamble not be used to interpret the other provisions of the Constitution.The Government has included a carefully drafted clause in the bill. It provides that the preamble has no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting the Constitution, or any law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth.This is not intended to signal that the preamble can just be ignored. If approved at referendum, it will be a powerful public statement of the values and aspirations of contemporary Australia.How laws should be developed to pursue those values and aspirations must, however, be a matter for judgement by the elected representatives of the people and the open processes of legislation. It should not be a matter for judicial determination based on the interpretation of what are necessarily broad statements. The preamble should not provide a basis for any judge to pursue a personal agenda.The development of the preamble follows an extensive public debate on the preamble, sparked by the release in March this year of the Government's exposure draft.Nearly 700 submissions were received in response to the Government's invitation for comments. A wide debate ensued in the media on other drafts. These comments have been taken into account in developing the proposal now before the Senate. I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.Bills7356r779735609:58:007356Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Parer, I present the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7356r776735609:59:007356Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Tierney, I present the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7356r714735609:59:007356Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Tierney, I present the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7357r8417357Consideration resumed from 11 August.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and opposition amendment No. 1 to the title moved by Senator Faulkner. The question is that that amendment be agreed to.10:00:007357Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government does not support this amendment for a number of reasons. At the outset, I would point the chamber to research conducted by Newspoll earlier this year in an effort to gauge what level of information the community had in relation to the forthcoming referendum and various aspects relating to it. I think it is noteworthy that only 37 per cent of those surveyed had an actual knowledge of how a President would be chosen. The question of how you choose your President is essential to the model of this republic. It forms the basis of the model. In fact, the debate today has largely been on what sort of model is preferred, insofar as how the President is elected or chosen—whether they be chosen by a joint sitting of the parliament or by the people of Australia.Only 37 per cent of those surveyed knew how the President would be chosen in this model. That meant, conversely, that 63 per cent did not know. What is even more telling is that in the ethnic groups that were surveyed 62 per cent thought that, under this model, the President would be popularly elected. So you have some not quite two-thirds of ethnic groups surveyed thinking that, when they voted for this model, the President would be popularly elected. That is clearly a misconception. The government is of course aiming to clear up these misconceptions, and the lack of knowledge that I have referred to, by a neutral public education campaign costing some $4.5 million. That will be conducted in September. Also, by virtue of a debate from both the yes and no committees in October, which will be federally funded at a total of $15 million, it is hoped that these issues will be drawn out during the course of those campaigns.Nonetheless, it is essential, when the question is put to the people of Australia about the model being proposed for the republic, that it include mention of how the President is appointed. I say that that is even more important because of the research that I have just pointed to. In the long title which forms the question, that is not mentioned in the amendment proposed by the opposition. They simply say that it is:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President.That leaves out entirely the method of appointment of that President. It is the government's contention that, in view of that research, it is essential—it is more than essential, we have a duty—to incorporate in that question the method of appointment of the President. It is also significant that 43 per cent of those surveyed strongly believed that the President would have a role similar to either the American President or the current Australian Prime Minister. Once again, you have these misconceptions afoot which need to be addressed and which the government will be making every effort to address in the forthcoming months.That does not mean to say that you simply neglect your duty in the way that you frame the question because to wilfully allow a significant part of the electorate to remain misinformed would be irresponsible. The question, as put by the opposition, does exactly that. It deprives the people of Australia of knowing the method of appointment of the President. This has, after all, formed one of the basic tenets of argument in relation to this whole question and the opposition wants to leave that out. The question of the deletion of `Australian' is of no great moment. The question is quite simply that a President will replace the Queen and the Governor-General and that is incorporated in the government's long title of the bill. It is something which is popularly known and is one of the basic arguments in relation to this whole question.I would put to the chamber that the joint committee was not unanimous in its recommendation on this. There is a misconception afoot, particularly in the press, that there was some unanimity in relation to this. I would point to the dissenting reports in the committee report and cite from Senator Abetz and Mr Hawker, who stated in relation to the question as proposed by the opposition:Further, the question fails to inform the people of the type of republic on which they need to cast their judgment. For every republic in the world there is a different model. There are also many theoretical republics which have never been put into practice. The proposed republic is such a theoretical model. It is therefore imperative that the Australian people be informed as to the type of republic on which they will cast judgment.I think senators need to be mindful of that because, as this is such an important question, it needs to be considered carefully.The question as proposed by the government is a fair one. It takes up the joint committee's recommendation about there being some disagreement with the word `chosen'. That is, if I can put it this way: the process of choosing the President was regarded as one involving several steps, and to apportion that word `chosen' as meaning that the choice resided only with the members of parliament was not appropriate and was incorrect. The government accepted the suggestion that there be a change and, therefore, the word `appointed' has been substituted for the word `chosen'. The long title now states: `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General to be replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament'.That long title states very clearly that the Queen and Governor-General are to be replaced by a President—and that is, after all, in accordance with the model and suggestions from the joint committee. It has corrected another aspect by going on to state that this will be an appointment, not a choice. It then states that it has to be done by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament. That informs the person who is being questioned of the method of appointment. What we have here is a four-line question which is informative, fair and does not leave people in a misinformed state, as would happen if the opposition amendment were to be adopted.So I say to the Senate and to the community at large: there is no subterfuge involved on the part of the government; there is no secret agenda at all. What we are about is informing the people of Australia when we put the question to them. It is nothing more, nothing less. Research that we have conducted shows that there is some misinformation, some misunderstanding, and it has to be addressed adequately in the question.The opposition amendment fails to do that. It is the opposition who should be asked what sort of agenda they are running and why they are scared to put to the people of Australia that the appointment will be made by a two-thirds majority of the members of a joint sitting of parliament. What is wrong with inserting one line? That is all it is, one line. The opposition have said that it should be a simple question. The government's question is short and informative.The opposition is leaving out one crucial line. People should ask, `What is the opposition's agenda in this?' Is the opposition happy to leave the people of Australia under a misconception? Is the opposition happy that 63 per cent of the people, as I have mentioned, do not know how a President will be chosen? Is the opposition happy to leave it at that? They are very telling questions. I reject the amendment as put by the opposition and, in turn, commend to the chamber the current long title.10:10:007358Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I move:(1) Title, before "Australian", insert "appointed".This is my amendment on sheet 1492 to the opposition amendment. It says that the word `appointed' should be put before the word `Australian' so that the long title then would read: `A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitu tion to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an appointed Australian President'.The views on the title and question are many. We all recognise that they have to contain matters of fact, but it is what is excluded or included which attracts our attention. The very best question would be a long one; the very best question would include all the facts. That would mean that the government's question with the addition of the words `and removable at the discretion of the Prime Minister' would be the finest question to be asked. That question would encompass the fact that we are going to create a republic; the fact that we are going to replace the Queen of Australia and the Australian Governor-General with an Australian President; and the fact that that President would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament but would be subject to removal at the discretion of the Prime Minister. They are the entire facts of the question.There is a problem with asking a long question. The consensus from the marketing side of government and from opinion seems to be that people need a shorter question to be asked. I cannot comment on the validity of that judgment. But it is for that reason I have supported the view that you either go for a very long question, which I have just outlined, or go for a very short question, which is the motion which will be put later by Senator Stott Despoja. I think anywhere in between is inadequate.But, having said that, there is nothing that is factually incorrect about the opposition's amendment. The minister has quite properly said that the key missing word is `appointed'. The dispute between republicans about models finally rests on the choice of one word or two: `appointed' or `directly elected'. It is the appointed nature of the Australian President which is important to direct electionists, and I assume it is very important to republicans who support the appointment model.There is nothing wrong with or immoral about supporting an appointment model; it is a legitimate point of view. And there is nothing wrong with or immoral about supporting a directly elected President; it is a legitimate point of view. But if you are to ask the people their opinion on it, you certainly need to explain to them—especially to those who have not followed the report, who have not been reached by education campaigns, who have not been reached by the media debate—in the question what is at stake. And this is about a republic with an appointed President; at the nub of it, that is what it is about. That is why I move this amendment to the opposition's amendment which is a factual addition. I must advise the opposition that, if my amendment to your amendment were not to be accepted, I would reject your amendment because I think the question has to have the word `appointed' in it—unless you decide to go for a really short question for marketing purposes.10:15:007359Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—As one who wishes to see the establishment of a republic, I am concerned that we minimise as far as possible the opportunity for the question to be misinterpreted. I suggest to the opposition that, if it persists with its proposal, it will give the monarchists a free kick. Nobody could say anything different, because inevitably the question that is going to be raised in the minds of the voting public is: how is this President going to be elected or appointed? The opposition is saying that it will include the long title but put a full stop after `President'.Of course, the missing element has been exposed by Senator Murray and I concur wholeheartedly with what he said. He has pointed out that there is a need to reduce as far as is possible the complexity of the question. There is also a need to have within that question the elements that are contained in the legislation. Senators heard what Senator Murray said and I concur. Unless you do have the words `appointed President', you really have to proceed and say `appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament'. As he said, that is not a true reflection of what the bill contains, because it does not go even inferentially to the ability of the Prime Minister to remove the President.In fairness, if the word `appointed' were inserted before the word `President', there would be no need for the remainder, and it inferentially indicates that, if the person obviously is able to be appointed, then they can be removed. But, of course, the two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament are not involved in that removal.I support the proposal put forward by Senator Murray and—although I do not think the government will wish to agree, because it is all cut and dried—I feel a little disappointed that this proposal put forward by Senator Murray will not meet with the approval of both houses of parliament.10:19:007360Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will speak briefly in response to a couple of the remarks made by the minister. I am aware of some of the research that has been done by the government in relation to the referendum task force. One of the important points that the minister has alluded to is that public education has to not only inform but also correct misconceptions as to what is included in the referendum and how the President of a republic would be chosen.I agree with the minister that an education campaign is fundamentally important. So you would assume that most of the education process must take place between now and when people enter the ballot box. The actual question is not intended as the sole method of influence or education. If the minister and others are so concerned that the method of education or the question is accurate, then I would suggest that you do as Senator Murray has suggested on a number of occasions—that is, you put as much information in the question as possible about not only the appointment processes but also the dismissal processes and powers—and also you get the wording right.The Prime Minister's compromise announced on Monday, which suggests `a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the Commonwealth parliament', is a statement with which many people would have argument. I think the concept of appoint ment is very much considered to convey the misconception of the parliament having more power than in fact it has under this model. Theoretically, it is the Prime Minister making this appointment, albeit seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, with a ratification or approval process by the Australian parliament. If the government is concerned about the accuracy of the question, the intent of the legislation and the processes of that model being included in the question, then let us get the question right. That is why the Democrats in this case have opted for simplicity.I would like to ask the minister if reports over the last couple of days are true in relation to the government's education campaign. What information will be provided to Australian households through the government's education campaign on the republic referendum? Is it true that information about the legislation and the model will be available only through public institutions, such as libraries, post offices and presumably schools and other institutions, but will not be mailed to households as originally thought?Certainly this was an issue that was brought up in the joint select committee. A number of witnesses, especially in regional areas, thought that they would be receiving information from the government. They were not necessarily talking about the Australian Electoral Commission per se, but they thought that they would be receiving information. One witness actually thought that they would be receiving copies of the bills.I have to acknowledge that, when that was put to the committee, senators and members alike were not able to confirm or refute that suggestion. It sounded unlikely to me that households would receive the legislation. I am wondering if the minister can enlighten us as to what information would be provided to households as part of the government's education campaign. I reiterate: not information through the yes and no committees or the AEC, but whatever information would be sent to households as part of the education process on which we all place a very high value.10:22:007360Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There will be various steps in the information campaign. The final form is being decided at the moment. To give you an outline, there will be advertising on television and radio and in print. There will be a free-call number available for people to obtain further information. There will be printed material available upon request, but it is not envisaged that there would be a national mail-out other than the one which will be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. I remind senators that that one will constitute a very large mail-out indeed, because it will be to all electors and will contain the amendments proposed as well as the written yes and no cases.That will be a formidable document indeed. That is aimed to reach people some two weeks before the referendum, give or take some time for reaching some parts of Australia. I put it to the chamber that to send too much material out on a direct mail basis could have an adverse effect, and that we should have it in a process of initially alerting people to the issue, encouraging and motivating them to do something, pointing them to where more information is available and providing them with some additional information at that stage. Then you have an avenue of printed material which is more detailed—and that again would have the free-call aspect—and a printed document which can be sent to them on request, free of charge. Finally you have the mail-out that I have referred to.I would submit that that is not dissimilar to a lot of advertising campaigns where you alert and interest people, motivate them, give them some additional information and then a line of further information, culminating in that final mail-out. There is advice that, if you put too much information in an advertisement, it can burn out very quickly and the message can be missed. Of course, 30 or 60 seconds in a television advertisement does not give you a great deal of room to move. They are basic tenets of advertising strategy which have to be observed in order for it to be effective.That is roughly the campaign we are looking at. The main public education campaign is in September. Printed information will of course be available during the October period as well. By that time you will have the yes and no committees' campaigns in full swing and, of course, in the last two weeks before the referendum there will be the mail-out. It is a concentrated public education campaign. If you went much further than that, you would risk saturation and burning out the message and you would also risk turning people away. You have to get the right balance. That is what we are working on at the moment, and we think that that strategy is a good one.10:26:007361Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank the minister for his answer and reiterate that the minister has made clear to the chamber that the government will provide a concentrated and formidable amount of information. That means that people who are voting will no doubt have a formidable amount of information about the model before they get to the ballot box. That is why the Democrats are aiming for a simple, effective, accurate question that does not seek to burn out any prospect of people's understanding or to provide too much information in the question: we do not believe it should be saturated—to use the minister's term—but I am very glad to hear that people will have a comprehensive amount of information about the model before they get to the ballot box. Hence the minister has supported the case for a simple and accurate question when we get to the polls.10:27:007361Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government believes that there should be a simple and accurate question and it believes that the one it proposes fits that neatly. Might I also say that the question is the last part of that information process. I would take issue with anyone who would say that the government's question as proposed would burn out the message or would overload anyone with information. Some four lines as a long title does not come anywhere near that.At the same time, it has some simple information contained in it which is essential for the elector—who, at that stage, still may not have come to a conclusion as to what it is all about. Try as we may, there will still be people who will need an accurate question put to them on that day. In fact, it is obvious that your question in any event, despite what advertising you have, should be as accurate and as informative as possible.10:28:007362Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam Chairman, we have probably had a fairly exhaustive discussion on this within both the Senate and the House of Representatives and also in the public arena. I do not want to generate any more excitement this morning. I would like to refer to a couple of points that have been made in the debate over recent hours and to defend the opposition's position on the motion we are putting before the chamber.The first thing we have to understand is that this is not something that the opposition itself worked out. The long title we are suggesting actually comes from the joint parliamentary committee. It was almost a unanimous decision of that committee to come up with the words that the opposition is now pursuing in the parliament to be the long title of the republic bill.That committee said in their conclusions:The committee concludes the most appropriate long title for the republic will be one that presents clearly and simply the essential purpose and outcome of the proposed legislation.Therefore the committee recommended the words that we are putting up today. So this is not just coming from the opposition; this is something that has been worked upon by members of parliament of all persuasions over recent months.Senator Murray talks about the absence of the word `appointed' making it unbalanced. Senator Murray, a lot of other words are also absent. That is why the committee felt that a wording that presents clearly and simply the purpose and the outcome is the best way to go. I said to you in the debate a few days ago that I thought there was a streak of Machiavelli in all this—a streak of Peter Reith in the way that you are putting up this amendment. I notice you did not deny it.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I wish I had that amount of talent, Senator Bolkus.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I am glad you do not have that amount of deviousness as yet. It must be the narcotic effect of the chesterfields in the Prime Minister's office that is having a bit of an impact on you in moving this amendment.The other point that needs to be made is that the question is important, obviously. What we are really on about is getting a question that is fair, and that is what the committee thought. One only has to read John Stirton in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday to see the analysis of the Herald AC Nielsen poll published this week; a poll which on the one hand put the Howard question and got a 31 per cent positive report. Only 31 per cent said they would support such a republic as described in the Prime Minister's previous preferred referendum question, whereas the question proposed by the committee engendered a 57 per cent response for the republic. Questions do make a difference. In a sense, all sides of parliament know that that is the case. There is a degree of shadow-boxing. We would maintain, though, that we have the legitimacy and the cloak of the joint parliamentary committee in pursuing this particular amendment, whereas on the other hand some of the others—I do not refer to people in this debate, but particularly the Prime Minister—have an interest in ensuring that the proposal does not get up.I do not know that I need to speak much longer, other than to say we could go on for quite a length of time on this. But we do have the preamble legislation to get into as well. It might be an opportune time to go to the vote.10:32:007362Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—For the record, I want to say that I think the word `appointment' that Senator Murray wants to interpolate is factual. That is what the Australian Republican Movement has wanted all the way through. I, of course, support the amendment as put. The Australian Greens have put forward the same amendment and support this alternative over the government's proposal.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN— The question is that Senator Murray's amendment to Senator Faulkner's amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN— The question now is that Senator Faulkner's amendment be agreed to.10:37:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)27Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Conroy, S. Campbell, I. G.Denman, K. J. Macdonald, I.Evans, C. V. Calvert, P. H.Gibbs, B. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10:41:007363Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On behalf of the Democrats, I move the following amendment standing in my name to the title of the bill:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 13 to 16), omit "with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament".I move this amendment with a strong desire to ensure that the Australian electorate answers a question on 6 November which is clearly, simply and accurately set out on the issue of the forthcoming republic referendum. In doing so, and I have done this previously in the chamber, I acknowledge the work of the Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum in attempting to provide a wording which achieves these ends. While I regret that the entire Democrat party room did not find that acceptable, we believe we have come up with a better version.My view, and that of the committee, has not been taken up by the government or the Prime Minister and, I understand, despite the fact that the Prime Minister rejected out of hand the committee's wording, there were differences of opinion within the government on the point. We believe the Prime Minister has come up with a compromise that is deeply unsatisfactory. The title proposed by the government is partisan and seeks to influence the vote on the move to a republic. It is no secret that the Prime Minister is not in favour of this change but rather than turning the debate over to those in the government who are in favour of seeking the change and perhaps taking a back seat on the issue—as he intimated he would do—he has not done so. He has entered this debate.Why the Prime Minister has chosen to do so exposes his deep commitment to ensuring the republic referendum is defeated. He has taken every opportunity to influence this process. This is not a case of a half-hearted attempt at furthering constitutional reform but a concerted effort to undermine republicanism. From insisting on appointing half of the Constitutional Convention delegates rather than allowing them to be elected, and publicly misrepresenting the role of the public nomination process and the appointment of a President, the Prime Minister has engaged in a campaign of subterfuge to sink the republic. However, his insistence on the wording that he has proposed is the most outrageous aspect of this debate so far.As Professor George Winterton has stated, past referendum questions have been framed in a favourable manner designed to secure a yes vote. As pointed out in yesterday's Australian, despite blatantly favourable wording in past ballots, only eight out of 42 constitutional referenda have been successful. So, when a question like a proposed law to alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic elections throughout Australia does not secure a yes vote, can there be any doubt that our Prime Minister is doing all he can to ensure that this year's referendum on the republic is equally unsuccessful?The wording the Prime Minister has proposed is not only inherently biased against the yes vote in its focus on one particular element of the appointment process—not coincidentally the most unpopular element—but also incorrect. It is inaccurate. The President is not appointed by parliament; the President is appointed according to the following processes: nomination by any member of the public to a nominations committee comprising one-half community members and one-half members of the federal parliament from all parties; formulation of a short list by that committee and its presentation to the Prime Minister; proposal of one candidate to a joint sitting of federal parliament—of course, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and probably, hopefully, after consultation with leaders of other parliamentary parties; and vote by the parliament on the proposed candidate. If a two-thirds majority approves that candidate, then of course the process is complete. Of course, final ratification comes in the form of the parliament. It has no role in the nomination or selection of the candidate. The Prime Minister's wording is therefore deliberately misleading, despite his claims that it is unbiased, despite his claims that he does not believe in any way that there should be any perception of this debate being rigged.The Democrats preferred the wording recommended by the 18-member joint select committee in relation to `established by the Prime Minister'. Half of this committee— which was established by the Prime Minister—including its chairman, were government members appointed by the Prime Minister. The wording it devised was supported by government members and strongly advocated by them. Yet the government and the Prime Minister made clear that he would have ignored that recommendation. Instead, he has opted for his own. So in order to find some way through the possible stalemate that was developing, the Australian Democrats have agreed as a party room on a much more simple, accurate alternative. What we have proposed to break the stalemate is the wording:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic.I defy anyone to find bias or inaccuracy in that question. It is the most simple and straightforward way of putting the question to the people on the issue of becoming a republic, and it is the question that Australians are expecting to be asked. It also ensures that the process of informing and convincing the electorate takes place outside the ballot box. The minister referred in the earlier debate on amendments to the title of the bill to methods of education and information. People should know well in advance which way they will vote, rather than us seeking to influence or have a last-minute education campaign in the ballot box on 6 November. It is not an education campaign that would be accurate if we were to use the compromise wording proposed by the Prime Minister.The Democrats reject the efforts to manipulate the vote inherent in the government's wording. We are serious—very serious—about this amendment. The Australian Democrats expressed yesterday our grave concern and anger that the amendments in relation to putting the Senate in the dismissal process went down. I cannot tell you the anger among some of my colleagues in relation to that vote, but I do not wish to reflect on a decision of the Senate. So this for the Australian Democrats is the last and most important stage, a pivotal stage as to how the Democrats vote on this legislation. Our title is unbiased, straightforward and accurate. It is a reflection of the intent of the bill that is to be put to the referendum, and I urge the government and all senators to accept the simple and straightforward wording that we have provided.10:48:007365Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset can I point out to the Senate that there is nothing wrong, mysterious or deceitful in the word `appoint'. In fact, I would simply refer you to the proposed section 60, which talks in terms of `appointment'. So we have already used in the legislation the word `appointment'. That, I think, has a symmetry with what we are talking about here in the long title, or the question which is to be put to electors on the day. Finally, in relation to informing people and any subterfuge, I would put to the Democrats that their amendment simply leaves the voter begging for more information, because it says:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic.What form of republic? What sort of republic? This was the very point that I raised earlier, and I will not go over it again. But the situation is that there are various republics around the world. Any Australian elector going to a polling booth on the day would not be assisted in any way by this question. But to say that the use of the word `appointment' is highlighting some flaw or is in some way making the question biased is totally incorrect. The word `appointment' is in line with other language used in the legislation.The appointment of the President would occur at the time of the vote of the two-thirds majority in the joint sitting. The only thing then needed to be done is the oath of office. It cannot be put any more simply than that. The appointment takes place at that vote. It is then acceded to by the candidate elect when he or she takes the oath of office. So the point of determination is when that vote is taken. The word `appointment' is entirely appropriate and one which has been used elsewhere. The government rejects any suggestion that that word is biased or has been used for some aspect of subterfuge.10:51:007365Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am unashamedly a supporter of a long and factual question. This whole debate is about what is left in and what is left out, and I have the personal view that the existing question could have many parts added to it to make it accurate and complete. I would add, for instance, the words `of Australia' after `the Queen'. I would add the word `Australian' before `President'. After that, I would say, `effectively appointed by the Prime Minister and confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth parliament'. Lastly, I would say, `and removable at the discretion of the Prime Minister.' So for me, the title of this bill which would reflect the reality of what we are being presented with would end up as follows:A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic—and I would put a capital R, by the way—with the Queen of Australia and an Australian Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President effectively appointed by the Prime Minister and confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament and removable at the discretion of the Prime Minister.That is factual. Some people may say that it does not have to be an Australian Governor-General, but precedent and convention now is that it is. However, you have to be realistic about these things. That preference of mine would not be acceptable to the House of Representatives and to the major parties. We then have to say, `If we can't get the full monty, isn't it better to have the shortest version and let the debate begin so people can add and qualify and adapt their views as they see fit?' The simple virtue of Senator Stott Despoja's amendment is that it is absolutely factual and allows everybody to then go on and say, `But, hey, that means we'll get an Australian President,' or for me to argue that he or she is removable at the discretion of the Prime Minister. We can have the full debate about all the qualifying clauses.Although I would personally prefer a longer question, I can certainly live with and support Senator Stott Despoja's amendment because it expresses facts with no additional influence attached to it. Of course I would like the appointment manner of the republic to be included in it, but once you say what you want included you need to go for the longest question possible. Frankly, if Senator Stott Despoja's amendment goes down, I would support the government's question as being the next best because it is the nearest to length that you can get.This is what Senator Stott Despoja is proposing: `A bill for an act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic.' That is a fact. That is what we are being asked to vote for. A republic means many things. It means many more things than just getting rid of the Crown—many, many more things. But there is one major feature of a republic—that is, it does not have a constitutional monarchy. For those reasons, I think this amendment is a useful way around a fairly difficult impasse. My support for this, Senator Bolkus, might put the lie to your view that I might possibly be a spoiler, but if I were a spoiler I would be saying that I want `appointed' in here. That is not my motive. I want a question which either reflects the full monty or is short and sweet.10:55:007366Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I follow up from what I said last night. We obviously felt our question, a question proposed by the joint parliamentary committee, was the fairest reflection. But I also indicated last night that if the Australian Democrats were serious about pursuing their shorter question that would be much more preferable to us than the Prime Minister's question. I indicate now that we will be voting for the Democrats' proposal, but in doing so I also indicate that I do not want this to be a one morning stand, in a sense. I do not want to come back here this afternoon and be confronted by the Democrats maybe doing a shift away from this position.We have to understand that there needs to be, and there is a public expectation that there will be, a referendum on the republic. It is in the hands of the Prime Minister to deliver that. This Prime Minister has conceded three times in the last 10 days on the question. His first question was indefensible. His second question was indefensible. We still maintain that his third question is unfair. If at the end of the day the Prime Minister says no to what the Senate wants, it will be on his head that Australia will not be going to a referendum on 6 November. That is something that we in the Senate have to appreciate. We are not here to basically participate in a charade at the end of which the Prime Minister gets his way. There is a genuine concern in this chamber, as there was on the joint parliamentary committee, almost unanimously but overwhelmingly, that the Prime Minister's question is unfair, and they came up with a fair question.We have all had and we are all entitled to have a legitimate view in what goes to the public. We are talking about changing the Australian Constitution here. When we get to the preamble question, we will make some points about how that process has been both undemocratic and contrary to the objective of nation building. Once again, there have been private rooms, secret deals and people left out with respect to the preamble. We have a chance on this particular question to broaden, as we have over recent months, the participation in developing the outcome. The preferred option of the committee was not accepted, but we think this is a much fairer alternative to the Prime Minister's question.Instead of fixing on one or two aspects of the process, as the Prime Minister does, this basically sets out the objective. If you are going to detail the processes, then you need to detail the lot to have fairness. Like Senator Murray, I believe unless you have the full question put before the people then it will be short of expressing the objective that we are attracted to. We will support you, Senator Stott Despoja, but we would like to think that there is enough will on this side of the parliament to force the Prime Minister to once again front fairness as an issue in this debate.10:59:007366Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Firstly, I congratulate Senator Stott Despoja on the amendment she has put forward. We have looked at a series of alternatives which are embellishments on the core idea that the people of Australia should be asked to vote on whether or not they want a republic. None of them, I think, is going to succeed. We are left now with that core question, and that excites me a lot. This is the question I believe should have been put at a referendum before the Constitutional Convention was held. It would then have been able to deal simply with the matter of what sort of republic we should have. That would have been the best course to follow.I was in the position two years ago of changing my position to give the pivotal vote to allow the Constitutional Convention, with all its shortcomings, to proceed, and I have been forever glad that I did. I now find myself in the pivotal position again with Labor supporting the proposal of Senator Stott Despoja and the Democrats that the question be simply whether or not people want to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic. The alternative is the qualified question proposed by the Prime Minister and the government.I am going to side with the simple question. I think it is a question that people will respect. It is a question that has a much greater chance of getting assent. I am delighted that the Democrats feel so strongly about this because it is not automatically going to receive the agreement of the House of Representatives, but a very strong message is going to go from the Senate to the government in the House of Representatives that this is the question that has to be asked. This is a non-contentious question. This is the simple, basic, bedrock question to Australians: do you want a republic? That is how it should be.The government has said it leaves the voter begging for more information. On behalf of all of us, the government has to carry out its duty and ensure that that information is available and well understood through the education program that is going to take place in the coming weeks. I believe that Australians do not want complicated questions. They do want the information available, but when it comes to question day, they want the simple question: are we going to have a republic?I support this amendment; it is a good one. I believe it has got us finally to where we ought to have been at the outset two years ago. I feel very honoured in this situation, as an Australian Green, to be able to make the difference in whether we have a question put to the Australian people shackled by the language the Prime Minister wants or the simple question that Australians deserve; and, of course, I am going to opt for that.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments and an amendment to the title.7367Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That the report from the committee be adopted.11:05:007367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:At the end of the motion, add:"and that the Senate calls on the Prime Minister to convene, not less than 3 years and not more than 5 years after Australia becomes a republic, a further Constitutional Convention, with at least two-thirds of the delegates elected by the people of Australia, to consider and report to the Parliament on the following:(a) the operation and effectiveness of the alterations of this Constitution made by the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 ;(b) any other matters relevant to the operation of Australia's federal system of government including (but not limited to): (i) the roles of the Commonwealth, State and local governments; (ii) the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship; (iii) the need for the Commonwealth to have the power to make laws with respect to the environment; (iv) the electoral system and, in particular, the use of proportional representation to elect the members of the Parliament; (v) the method for making alterations to this Constitution; (vi) constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation; (vii) equal representation of men and women in the Parliament; (viii) options for enhanced involvement of the people in the processes of governance".This amendment seeks to bring to reality the wish of the Australian Constitutional Convention that there be a further convention between three and five years after the establish ment of the republic to have a more thoroughgoing look at the reform of the Constitution. It will be predicated on at least a 12-month education and information campaign and input sought right across the Australian community to bring into play further changes to the Constitution consequent upon the establishment of a republic.Yesterday, I enumerated these issues. They are, in particular, to look at such matters as: the constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation, the need for an environmental clause in the Constitution, the relative roles of state, Commonwealth and local governments—the latter of which is not recognised under the existing Constitution—and the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship and so on.It is a very important issue, as I said yesterday. The Constitutional Convention would not have got to a conclusion without the agreement by delegates that there should be a further convention early in the new century. This amendment is to give effect to that important outcome of the Constitutional Convention last year.11:06:007368Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats will be supporting this amendment for reasons that I outlined during the course of the debate on this bill. We think a Constitutional Convention that discusses a myriad of constitutional reforms and broader change in order to update and modernise our Constitution is a worthwhile exercise and one that we have been committed to for a long time.11:07:007368Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Also last night I indicated that we would be supporting Senator Brown were he to move an amendment in the Senate to do what he was seeking to do last night. This amendment reflects a commitment made by Kim Beazley at the Constitutional Convention to delegates and also one that he has repeated in more recent days. There is a commitment by Labor to an ongoing process of assessment of the Constitution and review of it. This particular amendment moved by Senator Brown not only carries the capacity to do that but also carries a capacity to look at how the changes, if they are accepted by the public on 6 November, will be bedded in if Australia becomes a republic. So we also support Senator Brown's amendment.11:07:007368Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this amendment. I have outlined adequately before as to why the government opposes this amendment. The question of whether there be a further Constitutional Convention is one which the government will look at after the question of whether or not Australia becomes a republic is decided, and that is considered an appropriate measure. I do not want to take up the Senate's time any more other than to refer to comments previously made on behalf of the government.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.7368Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—I remind honourable senators that section 128 of the Constitution requires that the proposed law be passed by an absolute majority. Therefore, the bells will be rung for four minutes and the Senate will vote to enable the names of senators voting to be recorded.A division having been called and the bells being rung—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It was reported to me that the information on the television screens came on about one minute after the bells started to ring, so I have allowed the bells to ring for an extra minute. Question put:11:15:00The Senate divided. 0Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Brownhill, D. G. C.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H. *Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. 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.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.0Abetz, E. Allison, L.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. *Ferguson, A. B. Greig, B. A.Harris, L. Lightfoot, P. R.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Woodley, J.Question resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Business73697369Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of government business order of the day No. 4, relating to the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999.Bills7369r8977369Debate resumed.Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11.21 a.m.)—Today we are faced with the unique situation of a proposed amendment to the Australian Constitution being forced through both houses of the federal parliament in just two days flat. There will be no time for proper consideration of the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999. There will be no time between its introduction into the parliament and subsequent debate for reasonable examination of the fundamental issues involved. There will be no chance for a reasoned examination by any parliamentary committee.This outrageous situation has been forced on the parliament by the Howard government—or, more accurately, by the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister has been so scarred by the searing reaction to his first pathetic attempt at a preamble that he has denied the parliament and the Australian people the chance to even consider the product of his latest deal with the Australian Democrats. This inability to contemplate any examination will not stand the Prime Minister or his government in good stead, either in the parliament or in the forum of public debate. Wimping out of scrutiny by the broader community does not assist in maintaining an image of political strength—and the Prime Minister, of course, has never had much credit on that particular account anyway.The Prime Minister established a faulty process in the drafting of a new preamble right from the beginning. He went into the Constitutional Convention with the firm idea that he did not want to contemplate change to the preamble, and he only wilted in the face of the very evident determination on the floor of the convention. The vast majority of delegates expressed a view that the present preamble must be modernised, that it ought to reflect modern Australia, and that it ought to be a product of all Australians' views of ourselves and our nation.One of the saddest parts of the way the Prime Minister has mishandled this issue is that, at best, only two of these desires will be met. The preamble may be modernised and it may reflect Australia, but he certainly denied Australians the chance to be wholeheartedly involved and to own the final product. The Prime Minister should take full responsibility for these failures. Saddest of all is that there is really no need for the Prime Minister's defensiveness. The preamble that the Senate has in front of it today is so much better than its predecessor. It reads better, and I think some of the gross travesties in the use of the English language in the current preamble have been removed. Yet the Prime Minister has demeaned the product by a mean-hearted process—his outright stubbornness throughout; his final, grudging acceptance, having been pushed to change; and his characteristic unwillingness to consult widely, to include the Australian people and even to seek the views of his own colleagues, right until the very end.The consultation that he did take—the charade of involving one of Australia's great poets and yet ignoring his advice—was typical of him. I recall Mr Murray publicly warned the Prime Minister about his mangling of the language, but John Howard forged ahead with his ideological and political agenda. He ignored all the attempts to assist him to rewrite his mangled mess, including offers from my colleague Gareth Evans; the combined Labor, Democrats and Greens effort; offers from the indigenous people of this country, through their representative bodies, such as ATSIC and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation; and the excellent contributions of the Constitutional Convention and the people's convention.Even the media has played a constructive role in the alternative drafting. Some of the best efforts of proposed material for the preamble—some of the most poignant efforts which look to the future while giving respect to our history—were from schoolkids of all ages as a result of newspaper competitions. Those young authors deserve real praise. Yet the Prime Minister could not bring himself to include any of these groups yearning to be involved and to have a say. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has chosen to exclude all Australians from the drafting process for a new preamble to the Australian Constitution—except for the Australian Democrats, of course, and that is driven only by the political realities of this chamber. Everything the Prime Minister does, every small change he makes, is only because he is grudgingly pushed into it. This is not the way to change the preamble to the Australian Constitution.The preamble is designed to carry no legal weight but instead to be a symbol of the nation, a view of ourselves and an expression of our identity. To begin the life of this new preamble under the weight of John Howard's grudging stubbornness does not augur well. To include the Australian people in the drafting would not have cost the Prime Minister or the government much. Even to have established a parliamentary forum for the Australian people to be involved in would not have cost him. The bipartisan and bicameral select committee on the referendum worked well. It undertook its work diligently, and it produced more than useful recommendations. Yet John Howard appears to so lack respect for parliament that he cannot even allow a modicum of scope for parliament's inclusion in the process. It is a shameful process, and the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself. Frankly, all those who supported him in excluding the Australian people during passage of this proposal through the House of Representatives last night—and those on the government benches opposite who support these mean tactics in the Senate today—should be ashamed of their actions.The opposition will be opening up the opportunity for the parliament and the Australian people to be brought back into the process, even if we have only seven days to achieve that. The acid will then be on every senator in this chamber. As Kim Beazley said last night, `I'm afraid the Prime Minister sitting down for a chat with Meg Lees is not a sufficient basis on which to draft the Constitution.' That is a very fair comment. It gets to the nub of the problem.The sad thing about this entire preamble debate is that Mr Howard attempted for one reason or another to take constitutional draftsmanship to the heart and try to make his mark on history. He did this because, so far—in over three years of government—he has done nothing that is going to register with historians of the future. He has failed to make his mark. So what did Mr Howard say at his press conference on 17 February? He said:What I intend to do over the next few weeks is to settle the precise form of that preamble. I will, of course, reserve the right to consult others on the preparation of that—not that I doubt my capacity to pen the odd word but I will certainly not be so presumptuous as to pass up the opportunity of seeking the advice of other gifted wordsmiths within the Australian community.Apart from painting himself as a gifted wordsmith, Mr Howard developed a clunky, negative piece of prose, laced with the prejudices of a man who is absolutely out of his depth and his time. He came up with lines such as:We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.Even his co-writer, Mr Les Murray, distanced himself from the word `mateship' which has, as many literary critics over the past few months have pointed out, resonances of a historic Australia, such as the fiction of Lawson and the tragedy of Gallipoli. It is a word that does not ring quite as true today and of course excludes 51 per cent of the Australian population.The Prime Minister and Mr Murray had a spat about the way the connection between Aborigines and the land should be conveyed—not surprisingly, Mr Murray lost that battle. Mr Howard absolutely copped a pasting because of his poor attempt at validating his place in history through the wording of Australia's Constitution. I think we would all accept that the Constitution is a document that you would not tamper with lightly, even when the preamble has no direct bearing on our laws. Mr Howard's first draft preamble became an object of national ridicule. He knew that he had to do something to save a bit of face, so over tea and a few scones he, Senator Lees and Senator Ridgeway came up with the second version. I would argue quite strongly that a good leader should produce a preamble that distils national aspirations by sponsoring a parliamentary committee to engage in wide national consultation. The wrong way to produce a preamble is behind a closed door over morning tea.However, I would accept that Mr Howard and the Democrats have come up with a preamble that is better than the original Frankenstein monster that Mr Howard originally produced, gifted wordsmith though he is. `Mateship' has been deleted and the negative thread has disappeared; it follows more the form and structure of the original proposal of Gareth Evans; it is simpler; and its rhythms and statement of national identity conform more to what should be the preamble to our nation's Constitution. Labor is more comfortable with the second version, but we think there are changes that have to be made. The parliament and the people should not just give a tick to a preamble that happens to be a lot better than the first draft preamble that was proposed by the Prime Minister. Our responsibility is to adopt the best preamble.The best preamble should reflect what Pat Dodson, Peter Yu and other Aboriginal leaders would prefer to see because that part about Aboriginal custodianship or ownership of land is integral to how we feel as Australians. It is a very important part of the reconciliation process. The Prime Minister's and the Democrats' words are `honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands'. As you know, with those words, debate has broken open about whether `kinship' is an adequate word to describe that relationship. I do not know whether Senator Ridgeway had consultation with leaders of the Aboriginal community about that form of words. I doubt it, given the sorts of reactions we have heard in the last 24 hours. Last night on the 7.30 Report, the Prime Minister's own appointment as ATSIC Chair, Gatjil Djerrkura, directly addressed the issue of the meaning of the word `kinship'. He said:The term `kinship' in my view is a word that describes personal relationship, people's relationship. It doesn't reflect a relationship to the land. Custodianship, yes.`Kinship' does refer to a relationship between people, amongst family or one's ancestors, and I think Gatjil Djerrkura is spot-on—dictionary definitions of `kinship' refer to ancestral stock, one's relatives or blood relations. `Custodianship' is precisely the word in the English language which I think best describes the Aboriginal traditional relationship with the land—the entire conti nent—and failing to include recognition of this fact in the preamble will not change the relationship itself.Once again, we have highlighted the stubbornness of this man who will not allow this relationship to be truly and accurately reflected in the constitutional preamble, which is a symbol of the nation's identity. Ignoring the chance to perform such a truly significant act of reconciliation would be another missed opportunity—and such an important one—for the Australian people.The Constitutional Convention moved unanimously that there be adoption of the words `acknowledgment of the Aboriginal occupancy and custodianship of Australia by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders'. I think that to disregard the will of the Constitutional Convention would be a great pity. I think to disregard the wishes of elders, such as Pat Dodson and others whose words we have heard today, would be a grave mistake.While we were completely surprised that such an obstinate Prime Minister would not accept in the House our amendments relating to indigenous people, I am more surprised that he apparently will not accept the amendments relating to ex-service personnel. As the Prime Minister is well aware, there have been many Australian casualties in overseas conflicts which were not declared wars but nevertheless have been an integral part in forming the Australian identity. Australia's involvement in the Malayan Emergency and in Vietnam are very important parts of our nation's history. I think, from my own experiences as a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I do understand the views of the men and women who are veterans of these conflicts. I would hope that the Senate accept that such veterans not be excluded through some sort of blind insistence on the word `war' rather than `conflict' in the preamble to our Constitution. My colleague Senator Schacht will have more to say about this important issue during the committee stage debate.The opposition takes the firm view that there are a number of aspects in the preamble before the Senate which can be amended and changed, thus enabling us to have a preamble which is more inclusive for the Australian community. We urge all senators to consider carefully and positively the amendments that we shall be moving during the committee stage. Let me say to the Senate that those amendments are proposed in good faith and in a genuine spirit of constructive involvement in the drafting process. I commend the opposition's approach to the parliament.11:41:007372Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I note for the Hansard that this is not my first speech. But I do welcome the opportunity to speak on this occasion, as I consider this issue to be a most important one in that it concerns indigenous people and the nation. I believe that the debate about constitutional recognition in this country is long overdue; it was overdue in 1901. Yet indigenous people in this country have waited very patiently for the time when other Australians would arrive at the point of being able to include indigenous people as fellow citizens and recognise that there was a special relationship between them and the land.Personally I have always had concerns about the way this issue has been dealt with, but the Democrats' concerns about the recognition of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have to some extent been allayed. The preamble, in my view, honours for the first time Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; it recognises them as the nation's first people. That language is significant because it conveys the notion of prior ownership as well as an understanding that our indigenous peoples are the traditional owners of our nation. As people would know, the term `first nation people' is widely used throughout North America and northern Europe by indigenous people themselves.So, apart from the need for the preamble to recognise the past and the present, it is also a question of recognising the future rights and relationships of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to land, to people and to national society. I think they are the issues that must be addressed on this occasion. Specific mention has been made in the proposed preamble about the unique relationship that we as indigenous people have to lands, and the value of our cultures is also acknowledged.I believe that the argument—and the issue at the heart of the current debate—is that Australia can be shifted to reaching a point where we can begin to address many wrongs of the past. Following the decision of the High Court in Mabo—which finally, in the history of this country, laid to rest the legal fiction of terra nullius—Australians can be moved further to recognise that indigenous peoples are, in fact, the nation's first people, the original owners of this continent, whose cultures, laws, languages and customs have defied 200 years of dispossession, the stolen generations and assimilationist policies of governments. I think on this occasion it is therefore very appropriate that we are on the verge of amending the heart of the national legal framework of this country, the Constitution, to include Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and to honour the special status of the nation's first people.It is my firm belief and that of the Australian Democrats that, if we are to begin to deal with the unfinished business that litters Australia's history, then we must start at the pinnacle of the nation's legal system, and that is our Constitution. But amending the Constitution is important—not because of its legal significance but because it provides an opportunity to deal with matters of symbolic and political significance. My conviction on this matter is due to the fact that the Mabo decision itself and the ensuing native title acts, as amended, have never been able to deliver the recognition and benefits owing to the nation's first people. In short, they have not put indigenous Australians on the map in real terms. I believe it is appropriate that national recognition of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders is given and that that is recognised in our Constitution.I want to remind honourable senators of this house that one recent case in the Federal Court of Australia is a prime example of how the Native Title Act often fails to deliver justice to indigenous peoples. I refer to the Yorta Yorta case. This was a claim launched by the Yorta Yorta people over quite a substantial area of land and water in Victoria and parts of New South Wales. It was a claim in which the Yorta Yorta people invested a great deal of hope, energy, time and money. That case began in October 1996 and concluded in December of last year. The ultimate decision by Justice Olney was that native title did not exist in relation to the area claimed, and the applicants were told that they failed to establish any continuous links with the land and that the laws and customs of those people did not relate to the time of the earliest contact with Europeans. Justice Olney therefore found that it was not necessary to grapple with the question of whether native title even existed in relation to the claim area; it was more a matter of whether the people actually existed. So far the Yorta Yorta people have not been able to prove to the court that they had an ongoing relationship with their country or with their culture.I find the finding highly offensive. It is offensive to all indigenous people, because it fails to recognise an existing relationship to land. The ignorance of indigenous law and culture and the fear of the changes that recognition of indigenous people in national society may bring about are at the heart of the absence of indigenous peoples from the national Constitution, and we need to deal with this in a sensitive fashion.I put on the record that the Australian parliament has before it the opportunity to put in place the foundations for our future relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Perhaps the 1967 referendum provided an opportunity for people to begin to address those issues, but in the most successful yes vote of any referendum in this country, people made a promise to do something, and this is an opportunity to honour that promise.The Mabo decision and the Native Title Act have been mere stepping stones along the road to reconciliation. In time we will begin to build further on that in terms of the Constitution. I consider the preamble that has been negotiated between the government and the Australian Democrats as one of the milestones that we must put in place. The preamble to the Constitution, in my view, and in the view of the Australian Democrats, has a very simple purpose in terms of what it should achieve for the nation's first people. Its purpose is simply to put indigenous people on the national landscape of this nation. The preamble as it is currently drafted does set the record straight on so many issues that are important to Australia, but if it is affirmed by the people on 6 November, the Australian Democrats believe it will be instrumental in enabling Australians to deal with much of the unfinished business and begin to address the issue of true reconciliation between black and white Australians.I now want to address the detail of how indigenous people are included in the preamble and, in doing so, explain the significance and meaning of the language that is used, because this is part of the confusion in the current debate. To do this, I will speak very clearly on my understanding of the words that are used now in terms of kinship, custodianship, stewardship and traditional ownership. Kinship does talk about blood relationship. It does talk about sharing of the characteristics of origin, but kinship also captures the essence of the deeply spiritual, intimate and ancient relationship that indigenous peoples share with our country. That is a relationship of oneness and interdependence. Reference to kinship in the preamble to the Australian Constitution would therefore be appropriate, but it should recognise the continuing and evolving nature of indigenous cultures and the ongoing responsibilities we bear in relation to land.Our blood ties to land continue to remain unbroken, despite two centuries of dispossession and genocide. `Kinship' is perhaps one of the few words in the English language that comes close to capturing the connection to country that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders feel. Perhaps if further thought were given to the idea of an indigenous word that might be used to describe that relationship, rather than an English one, that is something that I could consider supporting. I am the first to acknowledge that the English language is not equipped to express the emotions and sentiments of indigenous people in this country when it comes to our lands and waters, but this does not alter the fact that it is high time that the principal document of this nation, our Constitution, has the capacity to recognise the special place of the nation's first people.I want to draw some attention in detail to the term `custodianship' that some indigenous leaders have said should be incorporated in the preamble in preference to such words as `stewardship' or `kinship'. Gatjil Djerrkura, the Chairman of ATSIC, wrote to me earlier this week to express his support for the use of the word `custodianship' in the preamble because, as he said:It has become accepted amongst indigenous people as the English word most closely approximating our deep and enduring relationship with our lands and seas.When I considered the meaning of `custodianship', I failed to find any mention of this in any dictionary. The closest reference in any sense was to the word `custody', and custody is about the physical holding of, or control over, a thing without a right of claim to exclusiveness—which is necessary to constitute any possession. That is a definition which I find very limiting. Not only does it fail but it does so in many particular ways. It does not accommodate the spiritual side of our relationship to land and the responsibilities that we bear in relation to those lands. Somehow it also suggests that indigenous people are merely `holding' the land—which has a transitory air about it.I believe that we must look further than just questions of custodianship. If we seek that as the compromise to something that I think is far better, then indigenous people in this country would only become keepers of public places on behalf of an absent landlord. This seemed further removed from indigenous people's relationship to land. Our land is not about a public building or something that is held by others. Nor are we simply gatekeepers. Our responsibilities in relation to land are much more than that regulation. We have a duty of care, of responsibility to nurture and to respect; and our very survival has always depended on our ability and willingness to learn from land and pass knowledge on to our children and future generations. It is essentially first about people and then about land. In the letter that Gatjil Djerrkura wrote to me, he also evaluated the term `stewardship'. He said:Where custodianship implies guardianship and care, stewardship evokes a sense of management or administration of the land or property of another. Stewardship therefore has the connotation that it is a temporary state awaiting the arrival of the owner(s).That introduces a new notion into the discussion of these particular issues, which I think could become more offensive to indigenous people if adopted. That is not what I believe indigenous people are looking for in the preamble to our shared Constitution. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments Gatjil made on `stewardship'; his comments confirm my objection to the use of a word that I find offensive.I want to put on the record that the preamble is the place for matters of national and political significance. It is about recognition, not about rights. What has been done has been done in good faith. In terms of kinship and describing the characteristics which establish a relationship of people to land, these are the issues that must be dealt with in this Constitution. There are three main issues dealt with in the preamble. It talks about people and their responsibility to each other in the context of kinship. It talks about a deep spiritual connection to land, and about a true and proper recognition of a vibrant and continuing culture. I remind everyone that in previous proposals for an alternative preamble on this question many people used the word `prior' rather than `continuing', and that is a tendency suggested by custodianship—again, in the absence of another landlord.I accept full well the criticisms that have come from indigenous leaders since the release of the draft preamble and I understand the expression of frustration and exasperation that is shared by so many indigenous people across the country at the continuing unsatisfactory state of affairs and relations between indigenous people and this federal government. But what needs to be stressed above all of that is the purpose of the preamble, and that is to recognise the important place of indigenous Australians in the Australian community; to highlight the fact that they are the nation's first people, a term that I think reflects their status as the traditional owners; and to recognise that there is a continuing and vibrant culture that has survived for thousands of years, and more recently survived despite dispossession and assimilation, a culture which continues to enrich the life of this nation.The preamble ought to be an aspirational part of the national document. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it will not be able to be used by the High Court to interpret legislation, let alone be legally enforceable. So even if we could come up with other words that might satisfy political ideals, they mean very little to indigenous people in the end. For that reason, the concern that `custodianship' is an improvement and should be included should not be allowed to remain a divisive issue amongst indigenous people nor, for that matter, amongst the rest of the nation.The preamble is an aspirational document. It is simply not there to do things connected with rights. It is there to talk about higher ideals, about the values of the nation. As for reducing indigenous custody figures, suggesting that there should be a turnaround in the deplorable state of health, or preventing the further extinguishment of native title, the preamble could never do those things, even if it were improved. It is about getting recognition, rather than rights, for indigenous people and to ensure that somehow it becomes the precursor for indigenous rights being recognised and codified in the main body of the Constitution. That is the only appropriate place for those issues.It is not appropriate that the preamble seek to achieve rights issues as against recognising people. It needs to be concise in terms of what it means for indigenous people, and I do not believe that `kinship' is a compromise: it is a vast improvement on all of the alternatives that have been put forward, including `custodianship'. I do not think that anyone needs to be a constitutional lawyer to understand its meaning and the values embodied in it. The present Constitution is so dense and legalistic that few Australians could honestly say that they had read any of it or could explain with confidence what role it plays in our legal system.The preamble in this case lends itself to being used as an educative mechanism, setting out what it is that we value about being Australian, where we have come from, where we are going and what is important to us all. The preamble therefore may have the potential to raise awareness, to foster understanding, and to help Australians appreciate each other better. But, most importantly, I believe it is a significant step forward in the reconciliation process.We still have until May 2000 to deal with the final document of reconciliation. The question has already been put on the table about the place of indigenous people, including the recognition of rights within the Constitution or by other means. I simply say today, in support of the preamble as proposed, that it reflects all of the characteristics of origin of indigenous people, their relationship to each other and their relationship to the land, in a more accurate way than any other word in the English language can.NaN:00:007376Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I rise to support the remarks of my parliamentary leader, Senator Faulkner, when a moment ago he addressed this chamber on this bill, the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 . Before I turn to what I have to contribute to this debate, let me knowledge the previous speaker, Senator Ridgeway. As he said at the beginning of his remarks, this is not his first speech. It may be his debut in the chamber, but I want to say without reflecting on any other senator or anyone that he has replaced in this chamber that it is clear from his remarks that the chamber has acquired an impressive new senator.My purpose in entering the debate at this point is to formally move in the second reading debate the amendment that has been circularised in my name. For the sake of completeness, I read into the record what that amendment says. It says:Omit all words after "That", substitute "(a) The Senate meet on Thursday, 19 August 1999; and (b) further consideration of the bill be postponed till 19 August 1999: (i) to give Australian citizens an opportunity to consider the matter and have an input into the contents of the preamble; and (ii) to enable the views of citizens to be considered before the Senate completes its consideration of the measure."That is the amendment I intend to move, and I would enjoin the chamber to gather with the Labor Party and carry this at the conclusion of the second reading debate. If it were carried then it would mean that we would meet again next week, after an absence of seven days, in order that we can listen to the Australian community and reflect more accurately in the constitutional preamble the views of the Australian community than rushing to legislation now would enable us to do.What has been said and emphasised by the previous speaker in his debut speech is that what is before the chamber is a document agreed in a back room between the government and the Australian Democrats. It has their support. But what we need for the Australian Constitution is a preamble that has the overwhelming support of the Australian community and which unifies Australians around a set of words. You cannot do a political deal on this. This is not something open to a political fix. This is something that ought to be inclusive and not an exclusive property of the new coalition that seemingly aspires to run Australia—the coalition of the Liberals, the Nationals and the Australian Democrats. This has got to be something that embraces us all. To proceed in the way in which it is proposed that we proceed runs the very severe and palpable risk that it will rupture the unity and aspirations of goodwill that exist in the Australian community for a preamble that does embrace us all. My amendment, if accepted here, would provide a breathing space to enable the consultations to properly mature, which rushing past the ability to consult thoroughly prevents, and therefore enable, if you like, an affirmation to a preamble to the Australian Constitution which is more widespread than the narrow base of a government-Democrat deal to thrust something on us at a moment's notice without the possibility of properly consulting the issue through.And so I say to the Australian Democrats and to the government: do not take this intervention as being something to frustrate the objective of a preamble; take it as a constructive effort to try and find a preamble that meets all of our aspirations. The Prime Minister himself has said that he wants his preamble to have broad community support. This is a way in which broad community support can properly flower and be achieved. I do regard this amendment as an important amendment.I want to offer several reasons, in addition to what I have already said, as to why in practical terms the amendment should be supported. First of all, let us go to what has occurred here legislatively. We are being stampeded. The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, was notified half an hour before question time in the House of Representatives yesterday of the terms of the new proposal for the preamble and told that the debate on the preamble in the House of Representatives would commence immediately at the end of question time. So, if the Labor Party was to consult and form a position after due consideration of all of our members, it would have required us in the House of Representatives to suspend participation in question time, given that timetable, in order to do so. I think that is unfair.As Kim Beazley has said in the House, it is not unknown for governments with a majority in the House to put oppositions in embarrassing positions and to rush them on matters of legislation. The Labor Party was, in government, as guilty of doing that as is the present government, and so no-one has the moral high ground on that point. But this is not ordinary legislation. This is something much more powerful and fundamental. This is the Australian Constitution. This is something that binds us all. So petty political manoeuvring should not apply here. In fact, it requires a more expansive approach, a more inclusive approach, and something that does not put us in the slot in order that we be dragooned, without proper consideration. We need to act in a way in which our hearts can follow our votes and our feelings can be incorporated in the final document.So my first point is we are being stampeded. That is unfair, it should not apply and it is not necessary that this occur. My second point is that there are flaws in this preamble, as any document rushed through in urgent negotiation will reflect. It is the classic case of a committee will always agree on a camel when they set out to design a horse. The flaws in the preamble have been pointed out to the Prime Minister, and at least one of the arguments seems to have struck a particular resonance with him, and some of my conservative colleagues in the House of Representatives—whether they do it here is another matter, but I trust they will.Let me now go to the reference to never forgetting war and the Australians who made sacrifices in time of war. That is something that Australians should aspire to—to reflect on that sacrifice, to acknowledge and respect it. The point was made by Graham Edwards, the member for Cowan, who is a disabled Vietnam veteran who goes into the House of Representatives in a wheelchair because his legs were blown off by a mine in the Vietnam War, that Vietnam War veterans will not qualify under this preamble because it was not regarded as a war. To substitute the word conflict for the word war would embrace our Vietnam veterans and not exclude them.If you asked most Australians I think they would think it is important that we provide that recognition to veterans of the Vietnam War. I opposed the war in Vietnam at the time but I acknowledge that those Australians who sacrificed their lives, or put their lives on the line because they were required to, are entitled to the recognition that veterans of the First World War and the Second World War are entitled to. It is even deeper than that. Those Australians in the Malayan emergency in the 1950s and early 1960s, who lost their lives or sacrificed themselves, are also entitled to recognition. Those Australians who have participated in peacekeeping forces, either under the blue helmet of the United Nations but nonetheless under the Australian flag, are also entitled to recognition.I do not want to extend the point but, by confining the preamble to the word `war' and not including in the preamble the word `conflict', we divide the Returned Services League membership and we divide recognition of those Australians who have genuinely sacrificed themselves. The question here is: did they make a sacrifice for the nation in times of armed conflict? The answer is, if you use the word `war', that there are many who would not be recognised.Let me return to the clause in this preamble that deals with Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. It is put to me by historians and Aboriginal spokespersons that the phrase that has been adopted in the negotiations between the government and the Australian Democrats is historically untrue. It reads:honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people,It is put to me that the nation's first people are Aborigines and not Torres Strait Islanders. As a matter of historical accuracy, it should state it in that way. It is also put to me that the better way of stating it would be to not differentiate between Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders but simply use the phrase `Australia's indigenous people'. They would then qualify as a block to be the first peoples of Australia rather than the first people.It is put to me by Aboriginal spokespersons that this is an important distinction and one that should not simply be rewritten for the sake of convenience, but rewritten so that we get it right historically and give proper recognition to the differences that make indigenous Australians such an important cultural underpinning of Australia's national identity. That ought to be a consideration.It is also put to me that, notwithstanding that type of amendment, there would be considerable unrest and disaffection among Australian Aboriginal spokespeople and the Australian Aboriginal community if this preamble were to go ahead. It is important to pause on this point: do we want a preamble that provokes division in the Australian indigenous community or do we want a preamble that promotes unity? I have to vote for the block that says unity rather than division, because this is supposed to bring Australia together. Let us not put something that sets Australia apart. In terms of our national identity there can be nothing more fundamental than this question.I support my assertion on that by simply going to Mr Gatjil Djerrkura who, in reference to the preamble that we have before us, said:The changes negotiated between the Federal Government and the Australian Democrats have served to weaken rather than strengthen the recognition of Australia's first nations in the proposed preamble.This is clearly a lost opportunity to acknowledge our ongoing custodianship of this country.Once again, we miss out.Those are the words of Gatjil Djerrkura, the Chairman of ATSIC and a person praised by the Prime Minister as being a dignified and representative Australian, when the Prime Minister appointed him to the chairmanship of ATSIC. This is a significant Australian speaking on behalf of his community, as the government appointed chairman of the body that represents the aspirations of indigenous Australians.His words are entitled to be given weight in this debate. Therefore, this chamber is entitled to pause for a week, rather than rush to legislation, to consider how a better expression can be given which incorporates his aspirations. It is not only him; he is not a lone voice. Let me go to what Mr Patrick Dodson, the predecessor of Gatjil Djerrkura, has said on this matter. And I go no further than today's transcript of AM where he said:I'd prefer nothing. This is an absolute farce, this preamble. We ought to take it off the agenda, leave it alone. It does nothing and it contributes nothing to enhance the position of indigenous people.There are several other quotes that I can give, but let me conclude with the last remark made by Mr Dodson in this interview:I think that the Prime Minister needs to talk very widely with the indigenous people across Australia, not just with the Democrats, and certainly not just with Mr Ridgeway.I make no reflection on any member of this chamber, and certainly not on Senator Ridgeway, but I incorporate that quote within the Hansard because this is the view of Mr Dodson. It is not a question of whether I support his view or not. He is in many respects and in many quarters regarded as the face of Aboriginal Australia. His views are entitled to be given weight and consideration. Rather than ambush us in this chamber with a preset of words worked out in a backroom between the Democrats and the government on a matter of profound importance that should embrace our national identity, like the preamble, let us simply pause for another week, come back here next Thursday with a chance to find our way through the drafting that is now before us which causes such deep and palpable offence to such well-recognised and significant leaders of Australia's indigenous people.Let me go to another point. We have the time to take the time to get this right. An adjournment of this debate until next Thursday will not mean that the date of 6 November for the national referendum will be endangered. It is not as if we have to do it today and if we did not do it today the opportunity would be lost. We do not have to do it today. We have the time to take the time to get it right. It seems to me that if we do not take the time to get it right, then there is a question—a substantial one—to those who want to deny us the time: why do you want to rush this through and ram it down our throats without proper consultation when it is not legislation but so fundamental a question as the Australian Constitution?There might be some who will complain about the cost, but the cost to broad community consensus is much deeper than the cost in terms of reassembling the Australian parliament. There might be people like me who would point out that, even for the most petty and trivial piece of legislation, the normal process is: we get the bill, we get the explanatory memorandum, we have a week to consider it and then we debate it. That has not been afforded to us on this occasion. Why not? Because of the timetable for 6 November. But I repeat: we have the time to take the time.I want to make a further point, and I will close on this. I did not intend when I started to take my full time, because I know there are many other honourable senators who want to participate in this debate, and I particularly acknowledge Senator Brown, who was kind enough to allow me to go before him in changing the batting order for the speakers' list. But I come down to this—which is, if you like, a plea in conclusion. I think I have made a reasonable case that there are some flaws in the drafting. It is no offence to the drafters to say that more consideration, better and further particulars and greater wisdom brought to the issue might improve it. So let us take the time for that.It is not a question of having an ego or a badge of honour—`We were the people who drafted the preamble'—because that will sit like an albatross around the necks of the drafters if it does not meet the objective that it sets out to meet: unify the Australian people behind inspirational words of which we can all feel proud. So taking the time in order to achieve that is a substantial thing, because at the end of the day by acting exclusively you cannot create inclusiveness. The Democrats and the government acting together here does not mean that they embrace the nation. The plea is: let us embrace the nation; let us make Australians proud of the preamble; let us achieve something that we can all stand up for. Let us not make it a partisan argument; let us make a unifying national issue. Let us take the time to do that. I move:Omit all words after "That", substitute "(a) The Senate meet on Thursday, 19 August 1999; and (b) further consideration of the bill be postponed till 19 August 1999: (i) to give Australian citizens an opportunity to consider the matter and have an input into the contents of the preamble; and (ii) to enable the views of citizens to be considered before the Senate completes its consideration of the measure".12:20:007379Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will support that amendment, because I also believe that we need time for the input of the Australian people in getting, as far as we can, this preamble right. We are going to have to live with it for a long, long time, and input from the Australian people over the next week would be very valuable. It takes a lot; I think there has to be very good reason for a move to have parliament or the Senate brought back for anything, but this is an important occasion. We are moving to the referendum at a great rate, and I think we need to—as Senator Cook just said—establish a preamble that has the overwhelming support of the Australian people, that has something which embraces us all.I also want to commend Senator Ridgeway for his contribution. I, as a non-Aboriginal person, find difficulty in devising the right words to help in a small way assuage the unfinished business that Senator Ridgeway spoke about—a very, very difficult matter. I think allowing more time for debate in the indigenous community would be an excellent thing. But I think Senator Ridgeway has in a sterling first contribution to the Senate helped all of us to get a better understanding not only of the words devised in the preamble that we are now considering but of how the wider Aboriginal community might consider those words and the different points of view that there are within the indigenous community—strongly held points of view—showing the maturity of debate that there is on these strongly held matters.On behalf of the Greens, I will be moving two important amendments. One is that we in fact stay with the preamble that came together under the stewardship of Gareth Evans. That preamble reads: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 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.It is half the length of the preamble before us. It is a more memorable, succinct and representative preamble to the one before us.I commend Senator Lees and Senator Ridgeway for making something of a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The release I have before me describes the preamble as Prime Minister John Howard's new proposed constitutional preamble. It is not his preamble. It is a preamble that has come from a lot of hard work from other people, including the two Democrat senators I have just mentioned. The instant reaction of the Leader of the Opposition was one that many of us shared—that is, this is entirely different to what the Prime Minister wanted. It is mateshipless. It does not have the totally incomprehensible final sentence of Prime Minister Howard's original and badly flawed attempt to come up with a preamble. A lot more input and wise counsel have gone into this one. It is something of a silk purse compared to the original, but it still could do with some strengthening of the drawstring. That is why I, on behalf of the Australian Greens, will move two amendments to that preamble if my effort to have the Gareth Evans version is not successful.The first of those amendments would replace the phrase `the nation's first people' with the words `the original occupants and custodians of Australia'. I note that Senator Ridgeway said that the words `the nation's first people' conveys the notion of prior ownership. I think we ought to be more direct about that and move to the word `occupants', which, of course, is ownership and more. I put to the Senate that, with the preamble that has come from Senator Lees, Senator Ridgeway, Prime Minister Howard and others, this is another way in which it could be upgraded and improved to do the job of embracing the wishes and the good feelings of all Australians, including indigenous Australians.The second matter is a difficult one in some ways to put to the Senate because there is such sensitivity about religiosity, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, and whether or not we should have reference to God in the preamble. I will move that we delete the first four words in the preamble before us, those words being `With hope in God'. As I said yesterday, what a long way we have descended from the Constitution as it now stands. It was written a century ago with reliance in the Almighty being put at the beginning of the preamble. We have gone from reliance to hope. That underscores, even in the people who have devised this arrangement of words, the massive change that there has been in Australia, the secular Australia of 1999. I believe that putting those four words—`With hope in God'—at the beginning of the preamble is to immediately cause difficulties for the 26 per cent of Australians or so who do not believe in God in 1999.We are a secular country. I am indebted to the associate editor of the Age, Pamela Bone, who, with great prescience, under the heading `Message of belief gives faith to non-believers', has today written about Australia's changing attitude towards religion but nevertheless the feeling, as she puts it:. . . that religion occupies the moral high ground almost as much as it always has. Belief is assumed to be the status quo. People about to give evidence in court are automatically handed a Bible. You can put up a giant sign saying "Jesus saves", but I'm not sure what would happen if you put up one that said "No god exists or has ever existed". See, I feel rude just writing it.Pamela Bone goes on to say:What, then, are we to make of the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, that we "cannot know" the truth of that most central tenet of the Christian religion, the resurrection of Jesus Christ? For surely if we "cannot know" it, then that makes it as valid not to believe in it as to believe.She finishes her column by saying:The logical extension of "we cannot know" is that atheism is as legitimate as religious belief (and perhaps wishy-washy agnosticism is the most respectable position of all). Those who hold their beliefs unquestionably will continue to insist that theirs is the only legitimate view. But they might have to learn that tolerance is a two-way street.The British newspaper The Independent editorialised in praise of Carey—that is, Archbishop Carey—saying his millennium message was "a breathtaking statement of the obvious". "More, Dr Carey, give us more," the paper said. Which shows just how far mainstream thought has moved away from religious certainty. There is nothing to fear in this. The best societies in the world are secular ones.I thank Pamela Bone for that. I agree with that and I think many members of this parlia ment agree with that. But we are all restrained by her original observation that you will get into trouble if you want to talk about it.I now turn to an article by Chris McGillion in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 April last year. He stated:Recent census data seems to confirm the eclipse of religion in Australia. In 1971, 6.7 per cent of the population declared it had "no religion". Fifteen years later, this proportion had almost doubled to 12.7 per cent. In 1996 it had swelled again to more than 16 per cent.On an age break down, the flow away from religion looks more like a flood. Among people aged 20-24, more than 22 per cent declared "no religion" in 1996, compared with 12 per cent aged 50-54 and only 5.5 per cent over 75.Chris McGillion goes on to say:A MAJOR social transition is under way according to the authors of a recent study on religion and age in Australia, Professor Gary Bouma and Philip Hughes of Monash University.In last month's edition of People and Place , the journal of Monash's Centre for Population and Urban Research, they write that Australia was once Christian in the sense of having Christian institutions that help form personal identity, interpret life, instil values and defend morality. But no longer."The Pre-Boomers [those people born before 1946] are the last cohort of this era," Bouma and Hughes claim, "the last to see the world in these ways and to relate to religious organisations in these ways."While this gulf is now dramatically apparent, it has had a long gestation.Margie Beck, one of the authors of Exploring Religion , a text produced for students undertaking the Studies of Religion course in NSW secondary schools, says that in Australia "historically there's been a real gap between the Church in a religious sense and the people—right from the early days when the convicts were forced to practise as part of their rehabilitation".Margie Beck is quoted a little further on, and I think this is very pertinent to the matter of putting `With hope in God' at the front of the preamble. The article states:But Beck doesn't conclude that people's thirst for spiritual understanding and expression is a casualty of the breakdown—that is, the breakdown in support for religious institutions—"Australians are spiritual and they find their own way of being religious," she says. "More and more, there is an alienation between people's lived experience and the way the churches present their message. There seems to be a perception that the churches don't have anything to offer in terms of `where I'm at', that the church doesn't meet `my needs' living in Australia in 1998. And so people find other ways of living their religious experience."The landscape, with its beaches, mountains, deserts and bush, is an example of the kind of place where many people now seek spiritual reflection, Beck says. In years past, they would have gone to a church.That is my point entirely. We are all spiritual beings. I will stand in defence of people's rights to express that spirituality in their own way. During my recent trip to Tibet, I was extraordinarily impressed by the spirituality of the Tibetan people—misunderstood by the Chinese authorities—which is the driving force not to give up on their aspiration for freedom and, in particular, their aspiration to be free to follow their spiritual beliefs.I believe that if we put in the preamble `With hope in God', with a certain intonation of hopelessness to accompany that, we are making a mistake in our secular society. We are a country which believes in the right of people to believe as they will. That is actually written into the Constitution Act of Tasmania. It is the one right, for example, that is written in black and white.We are in an age where increasingly there is a diversity of spiritual expression which is not represented by God with a capital `G', with the intonation of a gentleman with long white whiskers sitting on a cloud and dispensing knowledge, wisdom and strength. I think spirituality is within all of us and within our collective association with this earth and this universe. If we had words to that effect, I could support it. The narrowness of these words at the front of the Constitution is something that I do not support. I think many other Australians would be concerned by this. It is divisive and ought to be left aside. That would very much improve the preamble, in my books.I commend all those people who have thought a lot about this. It is a very difficult matter to come up with a set of words, with the necessary framework of poetry, to give inspiration to us—and particularly to young Australians in the future—and something that can be learned and people can feel proud of. I have a different point of view to others on some matters, but I respect the points of view of others. I think the process is getting towards a much better outcome. Therefore, I support Senator Cook's call for a further week, at this important juncture, to get even closer to an outcome that is going to get the wholehearted support of Australians on 6 November.12:36:007382Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I, too, rise to make a few comments about this incredibly important issue of the preamble and reflect on the time frame that the government, in collaboration with the Democrats, have set to constrain this particular debate. There is no need to rush, and I believe that it is a betrayal of the legacy of the Constitutional Convention and every Australian who has turned their mind at any one point towards the preamble and its symbolic substance of what it means to be Australian. I do not believe we have the capacity to duly consider in this environment, in this chamber, the ins and outs, the subtle interpretations, the semantics, the pros and cons of how we can construct this incredibly important set of words.In my contribution to the debate yesterday I read out a preamble drafted by one particular group of young people and that was one preamble amongst so many. The one good thing that did arise from John Howard's rather dubious effort to contribute to constructing his preamble was that everyone else thought that they could probably do a little better, and so many have tried. That can be seen by anyone who has engaged in public discussion or taken the time to peruse—certainly from my point of view—the vast array of Internet web sites that now host everybody's suggestions for a preamble. They have taken the time to put down their words and think about how they would like to see our Constitution begun.To delay this process now would give us time within the public arena and within this chamber, within the constructs of the parliament, to consider it further in the detail necessary. I believe that not to do so will result in a lost opportunity, particularly with respect to indigenous Australians. You have heard my colleague Senator Cook outline an appropriate amendment which does perhaps the most Australian thing of all, that is, to say it plain—to say `custodianship' because we mean custodianship—not to try to delve into the semantics of words to suit the prejudices of some of those in this place but actually to say it how it is. This is the great strength of the Australian language, of all our colloquialisms—we are blunt, we are to the point. Where is it more important to be to the point than in this preamble?I believe that the lost opportunity we will possibly see as the government proceed down their structured time path is actually a direct insult to indigenous Australians. It is a direct insult in its construct and it is a direct insult not to allow time for the discussion to develop. Unfortunately, the government's collaboration with the Democrats on time frames of debate in this chamber has become a very disturbing feature in the last few months. I would just like to remind those of you who take an interest in such matters that, with all of the significant pieces of legislation affecting the lives of, I would imagine, every Australian, there has been a constraint placed on the discussion in this place—the GST, the sale of Telstra, the online services bill, and now this particular debate. It causes me to wonder whether these delays are really just part of expedience, about progressing government agendas or indeed about limiting the extent to which public debate can actually develop.Because we exist in an environment where once the words are spoken in this place they are reported in the newspapers of Australia, in different media, the population as a collective has the opportunity to chew it over, to have a think about it, to see a little editorial opinion sprouted about, to have conversations across their desks in the workplace, in the pubs, in the school yards and in the child-care centres around the country. It usually takes a couple of days for thoughts to develop and views to be expressed. That is how you get public debate, public contribution, because you start to get feedback on the views of the people.This does not happen overnight, yet the government are taking the opportunity to push through so there is no chance for that public discussion, dialogue, feedback—all of those natural processes of political communication and citizen involvement in public debate—to occur. It is a severe constraint. What it allows the government to do is extend the firm hand of their control and manipulation over it. In some respects, cynics would say, `Well, isn't that what it is all about? Isn't it about controlling it, pushing it through, manipulating opinion to suit your particular policy views?' I would argue that, with respect to all matters that significantly change the structure of the society we live in and all areas where there is absolutely phenomenal symbolism involved in what the change is trying to achieve, such as this Constitution preamble, it is the right thing to do and the respectful thing to do not just to allow public opinion and debate to occur but to actively seek it out.The greatest irony is that at the Constitutional Convention this was actively promoted. Discussion about the preamble was one of the more dominant features of the dialogue that took place over those two weeks in Old Parliament House. Yet, despite there being a genuine expectation of and an important legacy derived from that convention that once we came here to discuss this issue further we would have an open, democratic process which everybody could feel a part of in some way, no, this government has chosen once again to constrain that discussion.It is only fair, in my view, to be able to take the time necessary to allow fuller participation in this debate. I do not believe the government are doing that in this case and I do not believe they have done it in the case of many other matters for consideration. My colleague said earlier that there is no reason to rush this through, and I support that view completely.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I call on other government business.Business73847384Motion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:That government business order of the day No. 2, Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999, be postponed until the next day of sitting.Bills7384s2237384Consideration resumed from 11 August 1999, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills7384r8977384Debate resumed.12:47:007384Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—I would like to conclude my remarks. The Prime Minister has not been able to find within himself the capacity to act as a non-partisan commentator on this particular issue. What a shame it is that we have reached this point in this incredibly important public debate to find that the Prime Minister of this country has chosen not to take up the mantle of being one who facilitates the progression of this country towards having a modern constitution but allows his own views with respect to the proposed referendum to shine through and overshadow the issue of substance. I believe the people who are being disenfranchised most by this debate are young Australians. A profound opportunity has been lost for this country to respect, honour and dignify indigenous Australians. I believe it will be young Australians who will look towards this Prime Minister as the one who deprived them of an opportunity to say something of profound substance within the construct of the preamble. Our amendments go a long way towards rectifying some of these issues, but nothing will change the way in which we have been forced to contemplate the preamble and the compromises that we have made to facilitate the progression of this issue. Our approach is one of rectifying a preamble constructed without the full participation of those who have an interest in it. I think that this, more than anything else, will be recorded in history as one of the greater indictments of the current Prime Minister.12:49:007384Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 presented to this chamber for consideration reflects a very flawed process, a joke of a process, and as a consequence is very much a second-rate result. We have here a preamble that represents an opportunity missed. It is unfortunate, but this proposed preamble has left us with a document which is essentially uninspiring. If Senator Cook's amendment is not carried by this chamber, I am fearful that we will in fact condemn a generation of children in this country to the recital of a second-rate script. We will see a product that has arisen from what can only be described as a disgrace.This parliament has had only two days in which to consider this proposition. We received greater notice and opportunity to consider such monumental legislation as the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill, the Dried Vine Fruits Production Underwriting Bill and the Chicken Research Levy Bill. These are matters that this parliament has given us, as members, a greater chance to scrutinise than that currently presented to us as being a major document for the future generations of this country—the preamble of a new Australian Constitution.I ask: how is it that such a situation can arise? It would appear that the Prime Minister has followed that old adage of the Liberal Party: when it comes to practical politics you ignore the facts. The preamble that has arisen is a result of a deal between the Democrats and the government. I put to this chamber that this country as a nation exists in a form far beyond that represented just by the Democrats and this government. A document such as the preamble to our Constitution ought to involve all the different political representations in this country. It ought to involve the representatives of all the people of this country. We ought not have presented to us a fait accompli in the form of a document, worked out in secret as part of a deal between the government and the Democrats.In previous times, the Democrats have said to this chamber that their view is that there ought to be a legislative program adopted based on the widest possible consultation. For instance, when it came to the question of the Native Title Amendment Bill in 1997, Senator Lees drew the Senate's attention to the fact that the Democrats were adopting amendments prepared after what they said was:. . . long consultation with the indigenous working group which made a point of listening to, and indeed taking on board, the views of Aboriginal and other Australians from across the country, without the resources of a full department and without the resources of a range of draftspeople at their beck and call.It was good enough in those circumstances for the Democrats to engage in a consultative arrangement. It was their view that there had to be a broad basis for consideration of such important matters. But when it comes to the issue of a preamble to our Constitution, the Democrats appear to be satisfied with a late-night deal with Liberal Party.Is this an appropriate way in which to carry legislation in this country? I am of the view that it is not. Kim Beazley indicated this morning that he is of the view that the Labor Party is providing an olive branch to the government and the Democrats. He said:We have said, `OK. We recognise that you have junked what you had before. Now you ought to recognise the fact that if you were serious about trying to get multipartisan support you ought to hear what the rest of us have to say. Not just us, hear what the rest of the community has to say in the next couple of days.'That is the thrust of Senator Cook's amendment. It provides an opportunity to draw people into this process and to consult with the Australian people in a time frame which means you can still put the referendum proposals in November.We do not have to adopt this sordid arrangement. We do not have to accept the propositions that have been put to us. Frankly, they are products of a flawed process, and they are the work of hopeless negotiators. Anyone who is involved in negotiation knows that the first rule is to keep your eye on the main game. That is the key objective in negotiations. It would be wise for the Democrats to remember that you have to go into negotiations with a clear view of where you have come from and where you want to get to. It would be wise for the Democrats to not be hoodwinked by the first concession that their opponent gives them. That is exactly what has occurred in this case.We have heard that the Prime Minister has dropped his fascination with the blokey concept of mateship in the form that he has presented. We are told that, as a consequence of that, the Democrats are prepared to roll over on everything else. He has produced a hotchpotch of words. While it remains better than the original proposals that were presented by Les Murray, they were an incredibly low base from which to start a comparison. The improvements that the Democrats have been able to force upon the government ought to be acknowledged, but a lot more needs to be done. From what we have seen before us today, there is quite clearly a great deal of work yet to be undertaken. That is why I am concerned that there has not been a proper process and that there has not been an opportunity for genuine community participation.The community is very clear about what it wants and has made demands time and time again that the public ought to be involved in such a fundamental matter as a preamble. We have seen preamble writing competitions all over the country—in schools and newspapers and on radio programs. We saw the Constitutional Centenary Federation call for submissions, and they received hundreds. Most of the resulting preambles were far better than the Prime Minister's preamble, and a whole lot of them are a lot better than the effort we see here today. The Prime Minister's department, if I am informed correctly, received some 580 submissions. None of these has been made public. Senator Lees is in the chamber, and I would ask her: is it the case that the Democrat deal makers got to see those submissions? Were any of them taken into account when you dreamt up the proposal that you are putting to us today? I trust we will find out.The sort of secretive process that has been surrounding the business of the new preamble is not good enough. We have seen the result of last-minute brinkmanship. We are being forced to consider this issue in a manner which is totally inappropriate for such a serious question as will be presented to the Australian people in the forthcoming referendum. The process is without precedent, and there would be few occasions historically around the world of such a provision being undertaken to draft a new constitutional provision of this importance. That is why I say that it is a disgrace. Senator Lees, it is quite clear this process gets the result that one would expect from it.This preamble is much better than the previous one put up by the Prime Minister, but it falls a long way short of a preamble that the Australian people would want and deserve. We see the reference to `With hope in God'—most public submissions that have been made have indicated that people do not necessarily want to see that in their Constitution. If it has to be there at all, you would have thought it would be appropriate to at least recognise that there are other spiritual beliefs. There are other concepts that need to be considered. For instance, 3LO in Melbourne ran a competition, and 117 people contributed to that. The two best submissions that they selected were given wide publicity. Neither of those two referred to God. The first paragraph of what we have here today clearly demonstrates that, despite the Prime Minister's wheeling and dealing about the republic, there is an absurdity in seeking to try to present this as some sort of additional concept or expansion of a view of democracy and federalism within Australia.The biggest problem in the current draft is the way in which it deals with indigenous Australians. Senator Ridgeway has made the point that he sees the views that have been expressed in this Constitution as being far better than the original, but the original equated our first people with the flora and fauna of this country and it talked about their inhabiting the continent. It would not be hard to get better than that.We see through the public comments that have been made about the current proposals by indigenous leaders that the current draft falls far short of the rightful aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. It is unsurprising as none of the leaders were involved in the process, and none of them were engaged in any meaningful negotiations about the product. That is not to say their views were not known. Anyone who has any interest in this matter would clearly appreciate the sensitivities of these issues.ATSIC called in particular for the words `continuing custodianship' to be included in the preamble in order for there to be recognition that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are `contemporary peoples whose very being is uniquely interwoven with this land'. Those sorts of terms are not here. The ATSIC board also brought to our attention their view that there needed to be `respect for land and indigenous cultural heritage' and `recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with continuing rights as indigenous people'. You will not get that here.What you see is a concept about Aboriginal people and their land as if they were set in time. It is not an evolving continuing process. I am not surprised that they are so cranky about this because they have not had a say. Their views have not been accepted. We are told that this preamble will assist the reconciliation process. From what we have seen today, that is most unlikely.Patrick Dodson made the point this morning that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would prefer to have nothing in the Constitution than accept this document in its current form. This is a reference which demonstrates the bad faith that this government has shown. It has sought to salve its conscience and its behaviour. Of course, it does not want to be held up to public scrutiny. It seeks to present itself, on behalf of white Australians who have real difficulty coming to terms with the reconciliation process, as having something positive to say about the matter. Quite clearly, it falls far short in that regard. The government here does not wish to properly acknowledge the articulated views and concerns of black Australia.In my view a preamble ought be aspirational. It ought be something that attracts support rather than divides Australia. I would like to see a preamble that acknowledges social values which are in fact progressive and acknowledges that Australia ought be an inclusive and, in my view, secular society. It also ought to acknowledge a social democratic commitment to human rights. You do not see those points in this document. This is a document which falls far short of those ideals.The majority of Australians have indicated over the past few months that white Australia does accept the legitimate aspirations of our indigenous peoples. It is only the Prime Minister and the clique around the Prime Minister who are determined to live in the 1950s who refuse to acknowledge those legitimate rights.The Aboriginal people of this country have very little to be pleased about when it comes to the question of citizenship of this country. It is only in relatively recent times that they were acknowledged at all as human beings in our Constitution. It was only by referendum that that proposition was accepted. In the first 67 years of this country, they were not even included as citizens. Since that time, what progress has been made? We can draw attention to the statistics. We can highlight the fact that Australia is a terribly unequal place.Recently, in a trip to northern Australia, the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee had cause to witness some of the injustices that exist in this country. We have only to look at the existence of the Aboriginal schools in this country which are appalling and we have only to look at the health conditions and the life expectancy of black Australians in this country today to understand why the talk of reconciliation under this government has such a hollow ring. We have, quite clearly, a proposition that is demonstrated yet again to be demeaning and untruthful. It is an appalling effort. It could have been so much better. It could have allowed for so much more promise.If we compare, for instance, the South African Constitution, we can demonstrate what an opportunity we have lost. It says:We, the people of South Africa,Recognise the injustices of our past;Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; andBelieve that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to—Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; andBuild a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.May God protect our People.How could you possibly compare the statement we have been presented with today with a statement like that? We have similar statements. For example, the statement of the Czech Republic, another recently formed country, says:We, the citizens of the Czech Republic in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia,at the time of the renewal of an independent Czech state, loyal to all good traditions of the ancient statehood of the Lands of the Czech Crown and the Czechoslovak statehood,resolved to build, protect and develop the Czech Republic in the spirit of the inviolable values of human dignity and freedom, as the home of equal and free citizens who are conscious of their duties towards others and their responsibility towards the whole, as a free and democratic state based on the respect for human rights and the principles of civic society, as part of the family of European and world democracies,resolved to jointly protect and develop the inherited natural and cultural, material and spiritual wealth, resolved to abide by all time-tried principles of a law-observing state, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this constitution of the Czech Republic.These are noble sentiments which go beyond what we have seen here today. Just think for a moment about the consequences of adopting this second-rate proposition, the consequences for all Australians who are dispossessed and are disenfranchised and who are not enjoying full citizenship rights in this country. I remind the Senate of an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald just yesterday, which states:Aborigines remain dramatically disadvantaged, with most black men not living to see their 50th birthday, more of their children dying as babies, and most of their families living in appalling conditions, according to new Government figures.Aboriginal children are less likely than others finish high school, get a job, or own their own home. Their families are more likely to be homeless (or living in an over-crowded dwelling), and to be involved in child abuse cases. They are also over-represented in prisons.How can you say that a document like this will meet the needs of people such as I have referred to? I suggest that Senator Cook's proposition that has been put before the Senate today provides us with a second chance. The Democrats, who are professed to be the great consulters, have the opportunity to test out their resolve in reality, and they will have the opportunity to support the Labor Party amendment.13:09:007388Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—The speeches on the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 that we have heard this morning from Senator Faulkner, Senator Cook, Senator Lundy and now Senator Carr have basically all been about process, about consultation, about no consultation and about the way this document has been put together. Specifically, this process was determined by government. Yes, we could have walked away and said, `We don't like the original draft. Therefore, we will simply vote it down.' But where would that have got us? It would have meant a missed opportunity. What the Democrats wanted to do primarily was to see that indigenous Australians were recognised somewhere in our Constitution, and this was the opportunity presented to us to do that.Yes, we could have demanded that it be put though a committee process but, as we looked at the discussions of the recent committee dealing with the other republic legislation, government did not consider this was a problem for us. None of that was acceptable to government. It was their choice not to refer this to that committee. It was, remember, a joint committee and not a Senate committee. Time is now of the essence in that, unless we get both these bills cleared off our agenda, we simply will not have the referendum and this particular bill put before the Australian people in November.So the choice came down to either the government's process or no preamble. We chose to participate in discussions with government to see if, rather than a formal consultative process, we could indeed build into the initial draft much of the comments and input from the various Net sites where people were having discussions on the preamble, from the many letters to the editor and from my mail, where there were many very good suggestions. Bits and pieces have come into this document, and indeed it is very different from the one that was initially put before us.So, whether it was consideration by the Prime Minister and his colleagues or considerations that we took into these discussions, there has been quite a lot of change. Certainly we have listened to those who have talked about, for example, the need to recognise the environment and the very strong feelings that have been expressed to us about the word `mateship'. I do want to acknowledge the Prime Minister's great interest in that word. Unfortunately, for many of those writing to us and contacting us, it also has many negative connotations.The basic decision was to participate to the best of our ability to get the best possible result or to walk away and see no question on the preamble. This is where I have difficulty with the comments of a number of members from the Labor Party about there not being any chance for consultation. What is consultation if it is not now putting this to every voter in this country and leaving it to them to decide whether or not this indeed is acceptable? Surely that is the ultimate level of consultation.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about the question? What about the words themselves? What about that? How shoddy!8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, Senator. Unlike many other pieces of legislation, indeed virtually everything else that I have dealt with in my time as a senator, where the public consultation has to come before, this indeed is a matter where public consultation is going to occur after we have made our decision in this place.We believed it was extremely important that we recognised the nation's first people, and I am disappointed that some comments in the paper today have just hinged on that word `kinship', which we believe is an improvement on `custodianship', and not looked at the recognition we now have for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as the nation's first people. The government has come a long way on that, listening to many of the arguments back in the Mabo debate and again under Wik, for that acknowledgment. Hopefully, if this is passed by the majority of people in the majority of states, that will actually be in our Constitution.I hope that we have before us a form of words that the majority of Australians in the majority of states will be comfortable with. I myself believe it is a strong enough preamble now that we will offend very few. At the heart of the first raft of problems was the fact that there were words and parts missing, and that put a lot of people offside. I think we now have a document that very few people will be displeased with. Obviously we are still going to have arguments about particular words, and here I want to comment on the excellent presentation by my colleague Senator Ridgeway, who expressed extremely well why he feels that the word `kinship' is not just about land but is about links between people and people and then people and land.As time goes on over the next few weeks, a complete understanding of why we have made that distinction may be reached. I certainly will be talking with Gatjil Djerrkura and others over the coming weeks. Once there is a complete understanding of why we have done what we have done, I have great faith that there will be greater support from Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders for that particular section.I reiterate my remarks of yesterday and say I am delighted that we have got to the point where we have a real chance, in a positive way, of recognising Aboriginal people. If we had walked away and said, `No, we have a problem with process,' we would never have got this far. As for the environment, certainly for the Democrats it is an important point—and I think for all of us it is important—in that an issue that has been at the forefront of Democrat policy since we were formed is now going to be recognised in our Constitution in a manner that gives us great pride.I would certainly like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the manner in which he conducted the negotiations. His willingness to explore common ground rather than stick to those words which were causing us problems, such as `mateship', has meant that we have a document that we can now present to the Australian people to give them a chance to have a say. I was very disappointed to note Mr Beazley's comment yesterday that he would consider putting `mateship' back in. I can only imagine what some of the women in the Labor Party must have thought. Certainly, judging by some of the calls to our office, many people found it a tad strange. That seems to have disappeared today—I cannot see it in the amendments anywhere. If that is the case, I am very pleased.I would like to conclude by saying that I think we have reached reasonable common ground. If we were to have, say, six months, six weeks or a week of consultation, we may get a few different words somewhere. Inevitably, whatever the document is that we put before the people, there will be some people out there who would argue that a word, a phrase or a particular term should be changed. It is almost the sort of document that one could consult on forever. But we have a very different preamble from the one that was first suggested, and that has come out of listening, reading and consultation—certainly on our part. I recommend this to the Australian people and hope that it does get the support of the majority of voters in the majority of states, which is, after all, the ultimate consultation.13:18:007390Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The preamble ought to express the eternal truths, the everlasting virtues and the universal aspirations that we have as people of Australia. That is what a preamble is about. The Constitution that we have been discussing is more the mechanism by which this country is to be governed—the constitutional framework within which it is to operate. The preamble is to be an aspirational thing—that is a point made again and again. What do we, as a nation, strive for? What do we look for? What do we aspire to in matters of the heart, the soul and the mind? What are the sorts of things that we say show human beings at their greatest? What are the sorts of words and ideas that inspired people like Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mandela? What stimulated the great inspirational figures of this century and of the past—figures that we can all draw from history, whether it be from religious history, political history or what have you?Perhaps one of the great things about the debate that we are having now is that it is a debate as to the Constitution and the preamble—things which in many other countries have been decided by war, strife and conflict. It is a great mark of the Australian character and culture that we are deciding things through parliament and a referendum. That is to be admired.Senator Lees has just spoken, and there are some things to be said about her speech. She criticised, in the sense of wanting to wound but afraid to strike, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, for wanting to put back into the preamble the word `mateship'. That was an ungenerous expression of opinion on her part, because Mr Beazley is a truly inspirational person, drenched in Australian history, with forebears going well back into Australian history.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Convicts!SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator McGauran shows the approach that he takes, which is exclusive. Convicts were the people who came to Australia as the original white settlers and who were the first to be brought here. They are not the ones that intruded; they were brought here, Senator McGauran. To belittle convicts is to belittle many of the original people of the European settlement of Australia and to belittle their descendants.It is a most uncalled for remark in a debate where we are trying to get some unity within Australia amongst people—it does not matter where they come from or what their heritage is. Australia includes heritage from time immemorial, in which lies the history of the indigenous people. It also includes heritage from 1788 onwards: the convicts who established a European presence here, leaving, I hope, a great legacy; the squatters; the selectors; the miners; those who developed the railways; those who brought federation; those who fought in wars such as the Boer War, the First World War, or the Second World War; the migrants who worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme; and the migrants that settled around Mildura or anywhere else. All of these people are the people of Australia.Senator McGauran, these are the people of whom we are talking, and for you to select one category of those people and in some way try to denigrate them and their descendants is a most ungenerous approach on your part. It is not the sort of mood that we ought to be bringing to a discussion as to what should be the preamble to our Constitution.The preamble is going to be an historic document if it is adopted. Even if it is not adopted, it is an historic document illustrating what we as a nation were thinking about at this time. Because it is an historic document, it ought to be said that it is disappointing to see that so few people are speaking upon this matter. I see that, out of a Senate of 76, there are nine people to speak on one of the most historic documents to appear in Australian history. When Senator Lees cavils about the opposition's proposition that there ought to be more time spent on this bill, she cavils at a proposition put by this side of the chamber that every senator who is elected by the people of Australia ought to have a say on one of the most important documents that will resonate throughout Australian history. It is disturbing that this document should come before the Senate in the rushed fashion that it has, and it is disturbing that it is not being discussed and debated as it ought to be. We are talking about a document that is going to epitomise how Australians see themselves not only in this generation but for many generations to come.There are great concepts that are left out of this document. The senators before me have spoken of some. One concept discussed was the proposition in the preamble which says:never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;It was sought by this side of the chamber to delete the word `war' and put in the word `conflict'. I have a brother who fought during the Malaya disturbance. His contribution to the country is ignored by this. That is why a word such as `conflict' would be more apt than the word `war'.I do not want to go on and on about things but I do want to say that, had there been a full debate about this in which everybody could express what they felt about Australia, about where it ought to go and about the aspirations towards which they should strive, we might have got a better document. I am not saying for one minute that there are not some great concepts in the document as it is presented now. Of course there are some great things in it; it is a good document. But what we want for Australia's preamble is the best document that we can get because this nation should be striving for the best. For example, is there the idea of community expressed in this document? Surely that is a concept that ought to be included. The document says:We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitutionproud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;It has that concept of unity, but has it got that concept of common action—the ability of the people of Australia to help those less well off than themselves?I am old enough, unfortunately, to remember the Depression when the swagmen went through country Victoria, where I lived, and how food was given at the door for them to make out in times of great difficulty and great tragedy. People acted together. There was a sense of community. Following the Depression was the Second World War—again a time in which there was a sense of the Australian people going forward, striving to realise the best that women and men can manifest as people in a community.That same sense of community was borne out in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. I use the version from the Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser, 19 September 1787. It says:We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.That is a short, sharp preamble which resonates. Within that short, sharp preamble the idea of the common purpose, the idea of striving forward as a community is well contained. That is missing from the preamble that is to be put through the Senate today by an arrangement between two of the parties that occupy this Senate, and without a proper public debate.The Constitution of the United States and its preamble was much discussed. Our Constitution was discussed much throughout the 1890s; but this preamble has not been discussed much. It is simply to be put through and that is the end of that. I thought that Senator Lees was conscious of that. I also thought that a lot of her address was attached to apologising for what she had done rather than explaining how this document encapsulates those thoughts, those aspirations, those things of the heart, those things of the soul that we strive for as Australians and which we ought to put in a preamble.As I say, and keep repeating, this is a matter not only for us but also for future generations. The sorts of words that Shakespeare captured in the John of Gaunt speech about England—`this sceptered isle'—were magic words. It is very hard, unless you are a master of capturing words, to put concepts into expression. I think if this had been debated, and debated well, then not only the concepts but also the words could have been improved.Personally, I am disappointed about the lack in this preamble of that sense that we live in a community dependent upon each other, each striving to help the other—picking up the one within our society that may be in need of that help, being generous of spirit and being great of heart. These sorts of concepts appear in other documents but do not appear here. Knowing the processes of politics, we must deal with what we have. As I say, as Australians, we have got here by the process of debate over the years; we have not got here by the terrors of war and the outrages of civil strife.I think the preamble could have been finished better than it has by greater cooperation and greater debate amongst not only members of parliament but also the community generally, because this is a document that is perhaps one of the most important that has come before this chamber. It is disappointing to see it treated in the way it has—rushed through (and I use those words advisedly)—without the opportunity for the parliamentarians in this place, all with different backgrounds, to express their points of view.I yearn to hear from my fellow senators—not only from my own great party but also from the other side and on the crossbenches—what they, as elected representatives of the people, feel are the aspirations of Australians.13:33:007392Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—In this hurriedly brought on debate—as a number of my colleagues have pointed out and as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday—we are proposing a change to the preamble to our Constitution. We are doing it in such a rushed way that the parliament will have only a matter of two days—or three days at the most if we sit tomorrow, which I do not think we will be—to consider it before it is rammed through the parliament and then put before the people. We would have thought that, under any reasonable democratic process, this preamble would have been prepared, tabled in the parliament and circulated for several months, creating an open and proper discussion amongst the public about its content.It would be amazing to believe that any of us could write a preamble in two days and then believe it could be overwhelming and automatically accepted by the people. We are a democratic society; there is always a range of views. People want to express those views about this preamble. This preamble was only thought of by the Prime Minister initially to make himself look a bit more positive when he is going around saying no to Australia becoming a republic. He wanted something to campaign on, something he was actually saying yes to rather than no, at the same time as the referendum. He wanted to be able to say, `I am thinking about the next century, not about the 1890s or about defending a hereditary monarchy.' This was his device to make himself look a little bit more relevant.Of course, we know that his first effort of producing a preamble some months ago was laughed off the stage of Australia. It was a ludicrous suggestion. The vision of John Howard, sitting in the Prime Minister's office in his chesterfield, with a quill and inkwell, trying to be Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln drafting a few appropriate words, is amazing. And look what he produced. It was a failure. I think he discussed his original effort with a couple of other people, and he had such wonderful words in it. The word `fashion' was to be in the preamble for Australia. I do not know whether this meant that he was under the influence of the fashion industry but, in 100 years time, trying to explain to people what fashion may have meant in 1999 would have been a big ask. He also resurrected the word `mateship', which got him into all sorts of strife trying to explain what it meant. Even Les Murray said he did not think `mateship' was an appropriate word to be in a preamble. He found that, overwhelmingly, the Australian people rejected his miserable, laughable effort at producing a preamble.Mr Acting Deputy President, you may remember that he made no effort to consult widely. You would have thought it would have been smart politics not only to consult the Leader of the Opposition and ask for an input but also to ask a range of other people in the community. No. John Howard believes he is a great wordsmith. He proved himself utterly deficient in that in his first effort. Then he realised, of course, that it would not get through the Senate in the end, and he would have to do a deal with the Democrats. That deal was done 36 hours ago, and it is being rammed through here.I have to say this is a surprising effort, in particular from the Democrats. Since I have been in this place and throughout their history, the one thing they have argued for is process: allowing time for things to be considered at length; referring legislation and ideas to Senate standing committees, Senate select committees and parliamentary joint committees; and letting bills be tabled. That is why we have a cut-off date for bills being introduced in one session; they cannot be debated and carried through until the next session. That was all part of the Democrats' proposal to have, as they said, a democratic process in this chamber. But on the issue of the preamble to the Constitution of Australia, they say they want to ram it through in two days, and Senator Lees, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, puts out a statement yesterday saying, `I am delighted that we have been able to reach an agreement with the Prime Minister on a preamble.'She may be delighted—at least she had the opportunity to talk to the Prime Minister. Apparently, the rest of the Liberal Party did not. The opposition certainly did not; the Australian people certainly did not. I am amazed that the Democrats, who have argued for parliamentary process that is open and transparent, could make such a narrow-minded deal on something as important as this. The Democrats will have to bear the responsibility not only for drafting a preamble in agreement with the Prime Minister—although it is marginally better than the first effort that the Prime Minister came up with—but also for ramming this through without open consultation and discussion within Australia. They can say, `Let the people vote against it; the referendum is to come.' We would have thought it much better to have reached a broad consensus after debate and wide consultation in Australia so that, when it goes to the referendum, it will not be a matter of great dispute or argument.But this preamble will be a matter of argument and dispute. It will not automatically be given a tick because, as my colleagues have said, first, the content of it is deficient in a number of ways; and, second, the English is totally uninspiring. It is extremely turgid. If you asked our schoolkids to learn the preamble that Mr Howard has produced, it would be extremely difficult because there is no rhyme or rhythm and there is no poetry in it. Kids could not learn it if they tried to. It would be a really hard effort. It would be like trying to learn your times table again and again by rote to try to remember it. Remember all those great speeches and all those great pieces of literature? My colleague Senator Cooney mentioned Shakespeare. Well, this certainly ain't Shakespearian in any way.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—`Isn't' Shakespeare.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes, it isn't Shakespeare, that is for sure. It isn't Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson or any of those others. It certainly is not Pericles addressing the Athenians, by any measure. We find it an extremely disappointing effort. It will not add anything to the debate about where the future of Australia is.I want to draw attention to the proposed preamble that Gareth Evans produced in conjunction with Senator Stott Despoja from the Democrats and Senator Brown from the Greens in April. When one reads it, it is memorable; it is easy to understand, read and listen to. I can imagine kids in school being able to learn it, remember it and quote it. It is something they can take pride in because there is a rhythm to the language.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Let's hear it!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I will read it to you.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—He can sing it to you if you want!4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I cannot sing, Senator. That is one deficiency I have, unfortunately. I am hopeless at singing, but I will read it as well as I can:Having come together in 1901, relying on God, as a Federation under the Crown, and the Commonwealth of Australia being now a sovereign democ racy, 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.It is much, much better. It is simple, to the point and something that people would be proud to say anywhere in the world on behalf of Australia, unlike the turgid effort the Prime Minister has cobbled together with the Democrats.I want to mention, as my colleagues have, the particular deficiencies, to which the opposition will be moving amendments, in the proposed preamble by the Prime Minister and the Democrats. It has already been mentioned that we will be moving an amendment to make clear the role of our indigenous Australians. The amendment will be:honouring indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of our land and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;We have taken on the issue, which we know is overwhelmingly supported by the indigenous people of Australia, and I believe it is overwhelmingly supported by ordinary Australians who believe in a reasonable and democratic society and want to give recognition to the fact that our indigenous people have been here since anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 years before European settlement began.I also want to mention that I will be moving a further amendment on behalf of the opposition as shadow minister for veterans' affairs. It is a simple amendment. The word `war' is mentioned in the draft preamble from the Prime Minister:never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;The opposition will be moving an amendment to delete the word `war' and put in the word `conflict'. The reason is simple. It was raised by one of the Labor Party members of the House of Representatives, Graham Edwards, a Vietnam veteran who, as we all know, suffered terrible injuries in Vietnam serving our country. He points out that Vietnam was not a declared war.Our soldiers have served in other conflicts—the Indonesian Confrontation and the Malayan Emergency. We now have many of our service people, men and women, serving with the United Nations peacekeeping forces in not declared wars but conflicts. By inserting the word `conflict' everybody who served Australia and put their life at risk will be better covered in this preamble. We hope the government will take the amendment on board. The minister should at least talk to the former Leader of the National Party, a Vietnam veteran himself, Mr Tim Fischer, because I think he would recognise that he fought in a conflict that was not a declared war.Our simple amendment exposes the inadequacy of the drafting of this preamble. It was done hurriedly. They did not think of all the aspects of it, and it was rushed forward into the parliament. That is why we are so angry that the process of consultation has been non-existent. I would have thought that there would be plenty of other amendments to this preamble people in the Australian community would want to propose once they have a chance to read it.Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, I know you are a member of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship group, but I want to raise an issue that I think some members of the Australian community would want to mention about the proposed preamble and it starting with the phrase `with hope in God'. I am not a believer in God; I am an agnostic leaning towards being an atheist. I do not believe that a Constitution for a secular society should have reference in its preamble to a commitment to some religious form, because some of us in the community do not believe in any religion at all. I think the complete separation of state and church is one that should be insisted upon and should not be reflected in the preamble.I think nearly 30 per cent of Australians at the last census said that they were non-religious in some form or other. Some actually said, like me, they had no religion at all; others said that they did not follow any of the major religions. I do not think that almost 30 per cent of Australians, who are loyal citizens of this country, should be automatically conscripted by having the phrase `with hope in God'. I do not have a hope in God because I do not believe in God. That is a legitimate view I have as a freedom of conscience. I know my view may be disagreed with. I believe in the old Voltaire comment: I disagree with everything you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. I think it is the same in religion.The personal religious views of individuals should be kept as a separate issue. They should not in any way be written into a Constitution that governs us all. I do not think those of us who are non-believers in terms of God as expressed here—as I think it means here—should be asked to sign on to it. It is not the major point of the preamble, but it is a point that I raise.I think the preamble of Gareth Evans, Natasha Stott Despoja and Bob Brown did it much better. I find that one more acceptable. They said in the opening line:Having come together in 1901, relying on God . . . In the initial preamble of the original Constitution God was mentioned. I think that was much more appropriate to the way people thought at that time. It recognised the historical aspect. But for the next century, I do not believe it is necessary to have the reference `with hope in God' in the preamble of our Constitution.I want to conclude very briefly again on the politics of this. The politics of this are awful. The Prime Minister has consistently tried to find a way in which he can undermine the coming debate on the referendum for Australia becoming a republic. He says, `I am out of it. You know my private view, but let the debate take place,' and then he does everything possible to undermine it. This preamble is a stunt to try to give himself something else to say so he does not look like he is saying no or he has got nothing to say on the major issue of Australia becoming a republic.I am surprised, if not staggered, that the Democrats have fallen again for the three-card trick with this government. They gave away to the government on the GST. They gave away to the government on the environment bill. They have given away to the government on the preamble. I only hope they do not give away to the government on the title of the bill for the republic. It is coming very close to the stage where you can now say, `A vote for Meg Lees and the Democrats is a vote for John Howard.' We in the Labor Party will say clearly and unambiguously at the next election, `A vote for the Democrats is a vote for John Howard,' because increasingly there is no separation on major issues between the Democrats and the government.These Democrats who were formed on the basis of `keeping the bastards honest'—to use that phrase which they proudly describe—now join the Liberal Party as the bastards. They are not going to be able to survive in the political world by saying, `Vote for us at the next election because we will keep both sides honest.' They have joined one side on the major issues. I hope they do not complain when we in the Labor Party make that point consistently and strongly in the lead-up to the next election and throughout the election campaign itself.I do not know what strategy the Democrats have decided to take by joining the Liberal Party and how they think they can get more votes. I do not think anyone from the Liberal Party is going to vote for the Democrats because they have done these deals. I suspect a lot of Democrat voters will be coming back to vote for the Labor Party and join the Labor Party as they did 10 or 15 years ago, and that is an opportunity we will take. To me, the Democrats' strategy is baffling, to say the least, if not bizarre. But if that is the way they choose to go to become a part of the government—to support John Howard in every trick he wants to impose on the Australian people—then they are going to have to live with it.I hope at the very least the Senate will vote for these amendments from the opposition to at least make this preamble marginally useful. But the great tragedy is it is a preamble without distinction, it is a preamble without any idea of being memorable and it is a preamble which in no way you can repeat with pride anywhere in the world, `This is the preamble of the Australian Constitution.' The American people are able to say with pride their declaration, starting with the memorable phrase, `We the people,' and then on it goes. It has become memorable not only in America but all around the world for the last 200-plus years. This is not a memorable preamble; it is a turgid, workmanlike piece, put together by a committee of two people who have got no distinguishing elements in them at all about literature, the English language or even the Australian language.13:53:007396Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—in reply—I thank honourable senators for their contribution to this second reading debate on the preamble. This is a very important debate and one which should not be cheapened by partisan politics.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Cheapened? You have rammed it through in two days, Minister.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—It has been cheapened by the fact that the opposition has referred to the fact that, because the Democrats have agreed with the government's proposals, automatically the Democrats are now forming a part of the government and they will vote with the government on all other major areas. The opposition needs to look at the record; it needs to sit down and look at the facts and see that the Democrats are quite capable of voting on issues as they see fit and that they have on numerous occasions disagreed with the government.But what we have here is a process of consultation, as stated by the Prime Minister; a process where note was taken not only of the many submissions that were made regarding the document but also the draft preamble originally agreed to by the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens about the style and some of the content of the original document. So what we have is a process of recognition of what people were saying and there has been a great deal of discussion both in the media and in the parliament in relation to the preamble. It was appropriate that the government spoke to those who were willing to sit down with the government and go through the wording of this preamble. As Senator Faulkner said, there was a discussion with the Democrats. But it was not as he said it—just a discussion over a cup of tea or something. It was a detailed consideration of the wording of this very important document.Perhaps the most forceful argument that I have heard to date as to why `kinship' was appropriate and more appropriate than `custodianship' when describing the relationship between our indigenous peoples and their lands was highlighted in the speech given by Senator Ridgeway earlier. I think the Senate ought to reflect on that a moment and look at the words of Senator Ridgeway, who described in detail how and why `kinship' was a much more preferable description—it had that ancestral blood link and it had that tie much more than `custodianship', which is something you will find in British common law. That is more a 1999 description in relation to the relationship that one might have with land. I think Senator Ridgeway referred to the relationship that a landlord might have with land. I think the opposition have entirely missed the point on that and they realise it. To denigrate the discussions which took place is to completely miss the advantage and benefit that the new preamble brings with it.Of course there are other things which the revised preamble has: the recognition of the responsibility that we have to our natural environment—and I do not think any Australian would disagree with that—and the recognition of those Australians who made sacrifices in war. `War' is used in a generic sense. To debate the fact whether a war was declared or undeclared, I think is being pedantic here. `War' is being used in a generic sense. People know what that word means in common parlance and it is appropriate that it be included in the preamble.There has been discussion about lack of time. Can I say to the Senate that over the last months there has been wide ranging debate and discussion about this preamble, and we have time constraints. I refer to a letter dated 10 August 1999 to the referendum task force from the AEC. In that the AEC states that subsection 11(1) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 provides that the yes and no case arguments are to be provided to the Electoral Commissioner within four weeks of the passage of any bill which is relating to a constitutional amendment. So that has to be done within four weeks from the passage of the bill. It then requires further time to finalise the text and the layout of the booklet containing the yes and no case arguments which is to be mailed out to all electors.It then has to have discussions with the suppliers about the printing of the yes and no case arguments. The delivery of the yes and no case arguments will occur progressively from about 15 October to 19 October if the referendum is to be held on 6 November. Any slippage of time would mean that electors would not get their yes and no cases within time. So what we have here is a concise description of the time constraints that we have upon us. We are to have a referendum on 6 November and we have to meet obligations in relation to the time leading up to that. So the government will be opposing Senator Cook's motion of deferral and would say that there has been more than adequate time to discuss the preamble.The government is concerned that the preamble be a document which encompasses conventional and current values. I believe the opposition's debate today has not pointed to any aspect of the preamble which does not meet those requirements. We have from the opposition some amendments—in fact, I think there are two or three. One is one word and there is another in relation to the description of the relationship of our indigenous people with the land. There is nothing else, yet the opposition attack this preamble as lacking inspiration. Yet all they can find wrong with it are two points which need amendment and those amendments take us really nowhere. In fact, in one case in relation to our indigenous people, it is quite the reverse. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Questions Without Notice739773977397Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the remarks of Premier Olsen, who has accused the federal government of disadvantaging South Australia because of inadequate funding for major projects? Does the minister agree with Liberal Premier Olsen's assessment, contained in a letter to Mr Howard, that the federal government used taxpayers' money to win the votes of Independent Senators Brian Harradine and Mal Colston? Does the minister agree with Premier Olsen's claim that the $40 million IT package provided to Tasmania was inappropriate because:. . . the Commonwealth has entered into the competition between the States for industry and has done so in a way which has provided an unfair advantage to Tasmania.Minister, through you Madam President, has your home state of South Australia been disadvantaged as your Premier claims?7397Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—My home state of South Australia has certainly not been disadvantaged by this government; it has been advantaged—through lower interest rates, lower inflation, lower taxation and all the opportunities to grow and thrive. I think that, between the good economic management of the nation—which has to be of benefit to all states—and the very sound economic management of the Olsen government itself, things are finally looking up in South Australia. South Australia is a more optimistic place economically at the moment and I think it is building a base to better take advantage of the general prosperity now being experienced in Australia. So, no, I do not agree with Senator Quirke. I think South Australia is significantly benefiting from the Howard government's economic policies, its Natural Heritage Trust and the Federation Fund. I am a proud South Australian and I appreciate the benefits that are flowing to South Australia from good governance under both Mr Olsen and Mr Howard.73987398Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question without notice is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate about the current state of the Australian economy, particularly any recent figures that have been released? Will he also inform the Senate about recent surveys regarding business confidence?7398Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am very happy to inform the Senate about recent developments on the economic scene. Firstly, let me point out today's excellent unemployment figures. Today, the ABS statistics show that the unemployment rate for July has fallen to seven per cent, the lowest level since 1990. Total employment in Australia rose by a further 17,800 in July, on the back of last month's rise of a massive 62,000 jobs. More Australians are now employed than ever before in our history. Almost 8.8 million Australians now have a job. Since March 1996, some 488,000 new jobs have been created. Since the election of the Howard government, almost half a million more people are now employed in Australia. Trend employment in Australia has risen for 26 consecutive months. Teenage unemployment is still far too high, but it has fallen to 21.4 per cent, the lowest rate since October 1990.The government recognises of course that unemployment is still too high and it has a major program to combat that, but what we are seeing from the figures today is a consistent trend of falling unemployment in Australia. This does not happen by good luck; it happens because this government has its fundamentals right—we have our budget right; we have moved very strongly on the industrial relations front; and we have a new tax reform agenda which is in the process of being implemented and will ensure a far more competitive tax system.What is the Labor Party trying to do about policies to grow Australia's economy? The fact is that the Labor Party has no answers or solutions. Madam President, I draw your attention to a protest in Melbourne organised by the ACTU. It was a demonstration against the government's policies and the ACTU confidently forecast that some 60,000 people would turn up.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—How many turned up?WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Senator Abetz—would you believe that only 10,000 to 15,000 people actually fronted? The story gets worse, because the rally immediately broke into two factions. There may have been the Senator Carr faction and the Senator Conroy faction but, nonetheless, it was a fiasco. I will share with the Senate a press report which has been passed to me:Union leaders, including ACTU president Jennie George and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, were left standing embarrassed on a street corner as the second arm of the march blocked their official protest.I notice that Senator Kim Carr is not in his seat; maybe he was blocking the march. But it gets worse:As renegade marchers overtook the official march, the leaders laughed and jeered at those they had left behind.With clenched fists raised, they shouted `we are first' and `we are going to beat you'.(Time expired)73987398Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is the minister aware of the Treasurer's statement in the House on Monday that the ACCC is `charged with ensuring that price reductions are passed on to consumers' and that `those businesses that do not pass on proper tax cuts to consumers in price falls will be liable to penalties with fines up to $10 million'? How then does the minister explain the following statement about the reduction in diesel fuel excise made by the Leader of the National Party, Senator Boswell, on 28 June:I went to Warwick, Goondiwindi, Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Kingaroy. When I presented this package to the transport operators out there, the universal message that came through was, `This is too good. We are not going to be able to retain all the extra profit.'Isn't this evidence that some transport operators plan to profit from the reduction in diesel fuel excise by not passing on all business cost savings to consumers? In light of Senator Boswell's findings, will the government request the ACCC to investigate those transport operators who are planning to profiteer from the fall in diesel excise?7399Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What an astonishing question from Senator Sherry. Senator Sherry opposed the cuts in diesel fuel excise. Senator Sherry and his colleagues opposed cuts; indeed, as my colleagues remind me, they opposed all tax cuts. The government is very proud of its program to cut taxes across the board, and particularly of its proposals to cut diesel fuel taxes. We know that those proposals of ours have been greatly welcomed in rural and regional Australia. I daresay that my colleagues will be going out in order to assist people with this package and to point out that it is this government which is delivering major cuts in fuel excise and it is the Labor Party which is opposing major cuts in fuel excise.RF4COOKSenator Cook—We did not. Tell the truth. We voted for the bill. He is misrepresenting us.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, you are shouting and behaving in a disorderly fashion. You know that this is not the time to be pursuing that.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Cook has burst through the ranks again. Senator Cook, I cannot recall any Labor Party policy to cut the price of diesel fuel. You and I had debates in the election, Senator Cook, and that was not Labor Party policy.It is interesting that Senator Sherry raises the issue of pass through. We have recently had an example of just how effective this government's policy is in relation to pass through—and I refer to the cuts in wholesale sales taxes of a variety of goods which are taxed at 32 per cent wholesale sales tax. Madam President, you will be aware that on 29 July—I raised this issue yesterday in the Senate—major tax cuts occurred in a wide range of goods, like TVs, stereos and hi-fis. My initial advice is that it was extremely successful in ensuring that there was a proper pass through of the cost savings. So we have an example already, Senator Sherry, where we have seen a major initiative of the govern ment being put into effect and the pass through, which you have referred to, in terms of cost savings being highly successful indeed. The ACCC has the powers to carry out a proper monitoring of the government's tax reform package to ensure that there is a proper pass through of prices.7399Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Kemp did not attempt to address or answer the question at all. It was about fuel price in the bush. Does the government believe that information such as that reported by Senator Boswell—recently promoted to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services—could form the basis of a test case for the ACCC to bring before the courts where Senator Boswell would be both an excellent and credible witness?7399Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am always pleased to hear praise of my colleague Senator Boswell, who is indeed a very worthy senator. The fact of the matter is, Senator, that we are delivering—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I ask whether truth can be covered under standing orders. My point of order is that there has been an absolute untruth told in the Senate. I went out there and I was told by the transport operators that they would have to pass their profits on because they would be making a lot more profit under the new diesel proposal. I have been misquoted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Boswell, that is not an appropriate point of order at this time. It is a matter for debate at a different time. I rule it out of order.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—The truth should be allowed under a point of order, Madam President, and I would ask you to look at it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, but there is an appropriate time when you can debate that matter, Senator.WW4Senator KEMP—In view of the fact that I understand Senator Boswell is saying that the information that Senator Sherry was conveying to the Senate was, to put it polite ly, not accurate, I do not think there is a need for any further response.74007400Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is addressed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Given that the Australian manufacturing sector is one of the many beneficiaries of the Howard government's sound economic policies, I ask: will the minister inform the Senate of the outlook for production, investment and employment in the manufacturing sector?Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left are being totally disruptive and are behaving in breach of the standing orders.7400Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Crane for his question. As Senator Kemp has so eloquently explained, the unemployment figures today really are tremendous news for Australia and Australian workers. Unemployment is down to seven per cent, nearly 500,000 jobs created by this coalition government, and the lowest unemployment in nine years—all evidence of the practical benefit of our economic policies. Of course, the good news does not stop there. The latest Australian Industry Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of Australian manufacturing is also evidence of the success of our policies for industry. That prestigious report finds the manufacturing outlook is strong, with most indicators indicating the best conditions in at least four years.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Tell us what happened to the 60,000 jobs.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Production is the highest in four years, with a further strengthening expected this quarter. Sales, new orders and investment are all on the increase and, as Asia continues to recover, exports continue to grow. Importantly, the net number of firms increasing staff is positive for the first time in five years and there is good news in particular industry sectors. In clothing and footwear, expectations for production are the best in seven years. New orders are up and employment is growing after a two-year lull and, of course, our $700 million TCF package will be a further boost to the confidence of those important industries. Also, we have our $2 billion automotive investment scheme which will be tremendous news for the automobile industry, which is experiencing the strongest sales in its history.Of course, the confidence being displayed by industry in the economy is evidenced in other surveys. The Australian Chamber of Commerce latest survey starts with the words:The results of the July survey of investor confidence are nothing short of extraordinary.This survey shows business confidence at its highest level since the survey began way back in 1991. The NAB monthly business survey reports another strong performance, with very few signs of any slowdown in domestic activity.Senator George Campbell interjecting—JX4Senator MINCHIN—Of course, this very strong performance is all occurring before industry gets the benefit of the government's ANTS tax package. I remind the Senate that when that package comes into effect it will take $10 billion in costs off the business sector. It will take $4½ billion off the costs of our export sector. Of course, it will get rid of that huge dead weight on manufacturing industry—Labor's wholesale sales tax.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Where are the 60,000 jobs?JX4Senator MINCHIN—We hear a lot from people like Senator George Campbell, who is again interjecting today, about the importance of Australian manufacturing industry. We gave the Labor Party its one chance to do something good—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Since you have come to office, 260,000 jobs have gone.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator George Campbell, you have been interjecting persistently and I would invite you to read standing order 203.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Madam President, we gave the Labor Party, including the likes of Senator George Campbell, one chance to do something good for Australian manufacturing—vote for the removal of the wholesale sales tax, the greatest unfair, inequitable burden on Australian manufacturing; a com plete dead weight on that industry. And what did Labor do? Of course, they voted to retain the wholesale sales tax on Australian manufacturing industry.All that we hear from Labor about manufacturing is nonsense. They have no credibility. They are complete hypocrites when it comes to their rhetoric on Australian manufacturing industry. Of course, the package we passed last June will also provide $12 billion in tax cuts for Australian consumers, further supporting Australian manufacturing and giving consumers the purchasing power to buy from Australian manufacturers. The economic policies of this government have been demonstrated by the tremendous figures today on employment and the great news evidenced in the latest business surveys.74017401Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the Minister aware that aged care residents and their families are receiving confusing and inconsistent advice from the health department on the amount owed through the government's income tested fee? Can the minister explain why one resident received three letters in two days, all signed by the head of the aged care department, advising them to pay three different amounts? Can he explain why another resident was advised to pay $36.75 a day, was then told six months later he was not required to pay any fee and had over $6,000 refunded, and finally was informed in June this year that he did in fact have to pay $36.75 a day and, therefore, owed $10,000? Don't these examples prove that the government's income tested fee is bad policy and lend weight to the Auditor-General's conclusion that it was badly implemented, as noted in the report tabled this week?7401Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Evans for his question. I am informed that the minister is aware that a small number of hostel and nursing home residents have received more than one letter with changes to their income tested fees, and less than four per cent of residents are affected by this problem. The usual reasons for these letters are small changes in residents' income generated by foreign currency fluctuations, changes in residents' circumstances, or reviews of income and assets by Centrelink or the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Residents should not be affected if they were in care before 1 March 1998, are full pensioners or have income that does not fluctuate frequently. However, the minister certainly appreciates that changes to fees can cause inconvenience to residents, their families and providers and, accordingly, she has instructed the Department of Health and Aged Care to work with Centrelink and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to investigate ways to streamline the income testing arrangements.7401Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer and his recognition that there is a serious problem, but I put to the minister that in fact it is more than inconvenience. This is causing a great deal of worry and concern among older Australians as they constantly have their fees changed. They worry that they will not have enough to meet their personal needs out of what is left from the pension. Can the minister give a guarantee that the problem will be fixed and that those residents will not continue to have this sort of worry imposed upon them in their later years?7401Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It should have been fairly obvious from my answer that a very small number of people have been affected. Of course, if even one individual has trouble caused to them, it is a matter of concern, and I recognise that. Matters have been put in train to overcome this particular problem, which is apparently of an administrative nature. I can certainly assure Senator Evans that we are concerned that anything like that may have occurred and will take steps to see that it does not occur, if at all possible.74017401Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, my question is addressed to Senator Hill, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it Australian government policy that members of the Australian Defence Force under the age of 18 not be deployed in areas of hostilities? If so, why did the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business choose not to support the proposal at the recent UN conference on child labour to raise the minimum age for taking part in hostilities and for recruitment to the armed forces from 15 to 18 years, even though it would have been in line with Australian policy?7402Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I received a hint that this question might be asked—but, unfortunately, only a few minutes ago, so I have not got a complete answer. However, I can say—and I am not sure whether this will help Senator Bourne—that the ILO unanimously adopted a motion relating to the child labour convention. The best thing I can do is hope to get the full answer to her question by the end of question time and respond then.74027402Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise when there will be a final outcome in the distribution of the $3 million promised to recipients of pituitary hormone injections which place them at risk of CJD? Wasn't this compensation promised by the government in March 1998 in response to the Senate committee inquiry into this major problem?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—That's a good question.7402Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—That is a good question because, Senator Schacht, both Senator Crowley and I were involved in a committee of inquiry into this very matter, which has been going on for some many years and has caused serious concern. I will certainly ask the minister. I do not have a brief on that but perhaps, Senator Crowley, you would afford me the opportunity of bringing the chamber up to speed on a concern that is evident in the community about reports of a new variant CJD, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which has appeared in other countries and the possibility that new cases might occur within Australia. I think it important to inform people that no cases of new variant CJD have occurred in Australia. It is important that that be put on the record. New variant CJD is so called because it primarily affects people under 45, whereas classical CJD primarily affects much older people. Approximately 40 people have died—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What about the compensation?VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner keeps interjecting, Madam President. This is a very serious problem, a major problem, and I would ask Senator Faulkner to keep quiet so that the Australian public can be informed.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Where is the compensation?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, cease interjecting.VW4Senator HERRON—This is appalling behaviour by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. You would notice that Senator Herron was not addressing you on that occasion. My point of order is this: Senator Herron has indicated quite clearly that he has not got a brief on this issue. He has not got a clue about the question and so he has picked up another brief out of his file—he has thumbed through and found something—and has decided to read that into the record. If he cannot answer the question, he ought to take it on notice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I think the problem with you persistently interjecting is that Senator Herron allowed himself to respond to you when he should have been addressing the chair. But I do not think it is reasonable to say that he is not dealing with the matter that has been raised.VW4Senator HERRON—That was my very point of order, Madam President. I will continue with the answer to the question. The question contained a reference to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, CJD. I am sure Senator Faulkner knows how to spell that, and I will spell it for him if he should require it.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Go on, spell it.VW4Senator HERRON—I am happy to spell it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, I invite you to address your answer to the chair and ignore interjections.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President. New variant CJD, Madam President, is of very serious concern, particularly in the United Kingdom, related to bovine encephalopathy, which affected the whole of the industry in the United Kingdom. There is very serious concern about its possible spread to Australia, and I want to reassure the Australian public that there is no evidence whatsoever of that occurring. In relation to the specific question, I will certainly get back to Senator Crowley and get an answer to it.7403Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. First of all, most of us would be appreciative of that information about the new variant CJD but, more importantly, the question concerns the allocation of the $3 million promised to recipients of pituitary hormone injections. Are you aware, Minister, that in April Minister Wooldridge stated that he believed the definition being used for what constituted a psychiatric illness warranting compensation was broad and included psychiatric conditions described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , known as DSM 4? Can the minister now assure the Senate that this definition will ensure that the victims of the pituitary hormone experiments will be compensated if they have suffered severe depression, post-traumatic trauma or stress related symptoms as a result of learning that their blood may carry the seed of a fatal illness which may strike them down many years in the future?7403Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—That was the crux of the preliminary question from Senator Crowley. I would have hoped that, in the interests of information, she would have asked that not as a supplementary question but as the substantive question—because that was the matter that was covered by the report that I referred to in my preliminary answer, which Senator—what is his name; who is the Leader of the Opposition in here?—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Senator Ray.VW4Senator HERRON—interjected with. No; he is away overseas, I think. Madam President, that is the crux of the question. I am aware that Minister Wooldridge has addressed it. It is enormously difficult to determine whether a person has CJD, and that is the crux of the question: whether there should be compensation for people who are affected by the possibility, and I will get back to Senator Crowley with an answer from the minister when that is possible.74037403Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, my question is to Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Is the minister aware of growing community support for the Howard government's initiatives to assist indigenous Australians? Will the minister please outline to the Senate some of these positive initiatives and their outcomes?7403Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the question and for her continued interest in my portfolio, particularly in relation to family violence which is of particular concern. The Australian government has, over the last three years, sought to change the direction of indigenous affairs away from welfare dependency, which was, as you know, the policy of the Labor Party when it was in power. We are implementing policies which facilitate and promote genuine economic independence for indigenous people and encompass both individual skills development and productive business enterprises. The government believes in practical measures leading to practical results that improve the lives of individuals and families.Funding on indigenous specific programs will total a record $2.2 billion this year, and it is being directed into the key areas of health, housing, employment, education and economic empowerment. Focusing on education and training will assist indigenous Australians break free from the shackles of welfare dependency. In 1990, just 1,600 indigenous Australians were attending university and, through a very active government program of support, there are now almost 8,000. Four years ago, just 800 indigenous Australians were learning trades through apprenticeships and the like, and today, through active government participation, there are 4,800. The government has also committed itself to $115 million for an indigenous jobs policy, which has been welcomed and supported by the opposition and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. We are sending the Army into indigenous communities in urgent need of basic infrastructure so that they receive things you and I, Madam President, take for granted, like clean water, electricity, housing and other vital services. Shortly the government will be announcing a new housing initiative which, amongst other things, will focus on increasing home ownership particularly in rural and remote areas where that is possible.The government is making progress and is proud of its record, but more has to be done to overcome the 13 years of wasted opportunities under the previous Labor government when money was just thrown at problems. Labor's poor record on indigenous health is highlighted in a report this week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The report pointed out a number of areas where the government will need to be vigilant in overcoming longstanding problems. However, it also highlighted some positive developments, including programs to improve rural health and an increase in Aboriginal community controlled primary health care services. This government's direction in indigenous affairs finds support at the grassroots level. The Australian newspaper, in an editorial this week, highlighted the point:There is an historic groundswell of opinion in Aboriginal communities from Cape York to the Kimberley that the focus of indigenous politics must change.Noel Pearson is one indigenous leader who has recently promoted self-empowerment and indigenous responsibility, and called for a reinvigoration of communities based on real jobs, leadership and entrepreneurial spirit. This approach reflects the approach being taken by the federal government. Yet, as the Australian editorial pointed out:. . . his immediate reward was to be vilified by those who still believe, against all evidence, that the only solution to a problem is one which demands even more money.I welcome Mr Pearson's comments, and I would encourage others to support him in overcoming indigenous disadvantage.7404Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if Senator Herron could identify the government's approach to this issue over the last three years? 7404Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Ferris for the supplementary. Madam President, you will recall that not only was Noel Pearson vilified but also I was vilified three years ago when I came out with this. In fact, I had a censure motion passed on me. Subsequently I was joined by my illustrious leader, I might say. Nonetheless, we have been saying this now for three years, but it is a reflection of what I heard—it is not something that I invented—as I went around talking to people in communities. The Aboriginal people themselves have been saying this, and told the previous Labor government but they were not listened to.I am proud of the fact that we are now in a position to listen to the Aboriginal people in the communities and to implement programs that will be to their benefit. It will take time—there is no question about that. I would welcome the opposition's support for the current policies that are being pursued.74047404Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that, in April this year, the minister for health undertook to establish an inquiry into the pre-existing ailment rule, which has been misused by some health funds to deny benefits to people? What action has the minister taken, and when will this inquiry be established?7404Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am aware that there was some such report. I do not take everything for granted that is stated by the opposition. But I will speak to the minister about that and get back to Senator Crossin with a response.7404Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you confirm the report in the Courier-Mail on 4 August that the minister for health has received applications from health funds seeking a doubling of the waiting period for pre- existing conditions and ailments to no less than two years? Has the minister made a decision on these applications and, if not, when will he refer them to the promised inquiry?7405Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I did see the report in the Courier-Mail in relation to that. It is not surprising that health funds would want a two-year waiting list for pre-existing conditions. Health funds do that. That is one of the things that they want.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Careful, there are some big donations here—be careful what you say.VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Conroy mentions big donations. I would like him to substantiate that. I am certainly not aware of it at any time. The government is continually reviewing health policy, considering the shambles that we were left with when we came into government. I understand that figures will be released today showing, for example, that for the first time in nine years there has been an upsurge in people covered by private health insurance; the first time in two consecutive quarters there has been an upsurge in the number of people that are covered by private health insurance, which was deliberately run down by the previous government.74057405Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the minister for schools. I refer to the Prime Minister's much publicised $18 million budget for a national drugs education strategy, $2.5 million of which was to be spent in 1998-99. I ask: why is it that only $340,000, just one-seventh of that budget, was spent in the last financial year?7405Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I take it that question was directed to me in my capacity representing Dr Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It is no secret that this government has taken innovative steps in drug education in this country. In fact, we instigated the National Schools Drug Education Council, which mapped a national strategy for dealing with the drug problem in relation to young people and how we deal with it in schools. This matter was raised at Senate estimates early on this year, as I recall. The officials said then that that non-expenditure referred to by Senator Allison was not lost. In the early stages, the unit dealing with this had to be set up, there had to be cooperation with the state and territory governments and there were initial phases that had to be engaged in order to set up the strategy.Once the strategy was in place, the funding could be applied to meet that. As I recall, there is no desire not to expend these funds. It is just that we have not reached the point where the full expenditure is appropriate. We are at those early stages of assessing where the need is and what is being done around the country so that we can move forward from there.7405Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. Minister, why did the ministerial approval of the draft strategy take two months to get through and will funding go only to programs which fit with the `just say no' message of the Prime Minister? Can the minister assure us that schools will not be forced to expel children with drug problems in order to benefit from programs?7405Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There are three questions there and I will deal with the last first. Of course, the responsibility for schooling in the government sector is the responsibility of state and territory governments.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—And so it should be.9X5Senator ELLISON—And so it should be, I hear my colleague saying. This strategy encompasses the variation you see across this vast country of ours, and what we have to accommodate are the different needs around the country. Therefore, local control, regional control, is very important, as is input from parents and teachers. There is no set rule in the strategy that school students must be expelled. There has to be a flexibility for local school authorities to deal with the problem as they see fit. An example of that might be a school in an Aboriginal community or a country town, which would experience vastly different problems from a school in inner city Melbourne or Sydney. (Time expired)74067406Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I ask: what assurances can the minister give the Senate in relation to the recent decision of the food minister's conference to adopt a partial labelling scheme for genetically modified food? Further, will there be a clear public process established to determine the so-called threshold levels below which it will not be necessary for manufacturers to state on the label that genetically modified components have been used?7406Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Forshaw for the question; it is an important one. I have had previous questions from Senator Bartlett about this problem. On 3 August, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, which is made up of the health ministers of the Commonwealth, states, territories and New Zealand, made a collegiate in principle decision to extend labelling to all genetically modified foods. Currently, all genetically modified foods which are substantially different from their existing counterparts must be labelled as genetically modified and what the changes are must be notified.The council's decision to extend labelling was in response to many calls to have information on the use of gene technology in the production of foods. Health ministers had no concerns that such foods posed any risk to human health and safety. The health ministers asked the Australia New Zealand Food Authority to draw up draft amendments to the standard to give effect to the decision, and to address a number of issues in preparing appropriate draft amendments to the standard.These issues include: methods of labelling that are practical and meaningful, with the lowest compliance costs; other methods to provide consumers with meaningful information where the food is of uncertain origin; implications of the standard for Australia and New Zealand obligations under international trade and food regulatory agreements; threshold levels of labelling; regulation of foods claiming to be free of genetically modified materials; and means of testing foods for compliance and enforcement of the standard. An intergovernmental task force is being established to examine these issues and it will report to the next Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council in October.Senator Forshaw asked what assurance can be given. I think the assurance we can give is that the matter is being taken seriously. We want to have the best possible scientific advice in relation to this and not make a definitive determination without that advice. I think any reasonably minded person would do so. I think it is important that it be done in that manner, so if Senator Forshaw were to ask me the question after that scientific advice has been determined, I would be happy to reply further to him.7406Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the minister for basically reading out the contents of the communique which I have in front of me, which I understand and which was behind the question. Minister, can you direct yourself to the second part of the question which was: will there be a clear public process established to determine the so-called threshold levels, given that this is a partial labelling regime to be introduced and it is important that those levels be established and clearly understood?7406Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—As I said previously, if Senator Forshaw had only understood the answer I have given him, that will be determined after the evidence has been examined by the committee.74067406Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is addressed to Senator Macdonald in his own capacity and representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the government giving serious, in-depth and favourable consideration to the report prepared for the National Sea Highway Committee by the TWCI and incorporating the Thompson Clarke study? Isn't the model contained therein a highly cost-effective measure which would deliver a national sea highway system to Tasmania in the interests of fairness for all? In view of the Prime Minister's considered public statement that the Bass Strait is the major impediment to the Tasmanian economy, population, investment, and jobs, what action will the government take to thoroughly assess this and see whether that will deliver the national sea highway to Tasmania?7407Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I acknowledge Senator Harradine's very great interest in this. It is an interest shared by Senator Newman, Senator Abetz—in fact, all of my Liberal colleagues from Tasmania—in access to Tasmania across the Bass Strait. As Senator Harradine rightly points out, the National Sea Highway Committee did speak with me yesterday and present me with a submission on how we can make the current Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme more effective within the current parameters of the budget for that particular area. The National Sea Highway Committee has been to see me a couple of times, Senator Harradine, as no doubt they have seen you. They did some months ago present me with a submission, which I undertook to very closely consider. They indicated to me on that occasion that their submissions would fall within budget, but when they were assessed by my department the proposals they were putting came to a total of about $60 million, as opposed to the current budget allocation of about $15 million for that.But yesterday when I was giving them that assessment and analysis they presented this new assessment—the one you have referred to, Senator Harradine—and at first glance I agree with you that it does seem to be a very interesting proposal. I have said to the committee that I would have their proposal very carefully assessed by the experts in the department. Certainly, if it comes out as good as the committee suggests to me—and I am not in any way doubting them—and if the experts can assure me that what the committee says on the figures and facts is accurate, then it is certainly something the government would very closely consider.As Senator Harradine would know—and I know my Tasmanian Liberal colleagues as well know about this—the proposal is for a new fast cat to go from Stony Point to northern Tasmania and a second one to be put on line in the not too distant future. The committee is suggesting to me that within the current parameters of that $15 million allocation this can be done. It almost seems to me to be too good to be true, but I am assured that it does work and the figures stack up. I certainly hope they do—I know you would certainly hope they do, Senator Harradine—because, if they do stack up and it can be done, it will mean that people can cross the strait at about the same cost they are paying now, and that of course would be a great boost for Tasmania.I am very proud to be part of a coalition government which in fact introduced yet another proposal to help Tasmanians get across the Bass Strait. It was the Fraser government that first brought into play the original equalisation scheme, and the Howard government has brought in the second one. For 13 years, of course, Labor did absolutely nothing. Suddenly they think this is a good idea, and they are making all sorts of promises. But, of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They had 13 years to do something about it and did absolutely nothing. I am certainly looking at it. I congratulate the committee for their enthusiasm and for the work they have done. I look forward to working with them to get a good result for Tasmanians.74077407Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Ellison. I refer to the recent scandal surrounding the collapse of the Sydney based National Business Management College. I ask: can he confirm that, despite being expelled from the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, the college still received approval with regard to 600 students? Can he also confirm that, of the 600 international students enrolled in the college—or allegedly enrolled in the college—approximately 300 are missing and that not all students who paid tuition fees actually attended the college? How many students has the department actually now located? Is it the case that the college computer records have been destroyed? What action has the government taken to investigate these serious mat ters? Have any of these matters been referred to the Federal Police?7408Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This is a matter that the department is looking into very closely. It is doing all it can to assist those displaced students to continue their study in Australia. It is also working closely, I might add, with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and, of course, the liquidator who has been appointed in relation to the college. Senator Carr has raised a number of issues which the department is looking into. I do not have that information at hand now, and I will take it up with the department. But can I say to the Senate that the department is looking into this and that all efforts are being made in relation to this matter. There are some operational aspects which it may well be unwise to comment on in view of the situation of the college, but I reassure the Senate that the department has already been considering ways of strengthening the ESOS Act—which has already been before the Senate last year and I think earlier this year—in order to address these issues.7408Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it that the minister has accepted the question, is taking it on notice and will give me a response to those specific matters I have raised. I would ask the minister could he also indicate whether or not it is the view of the government that the lack of Commonwealth regulation—or the inadequacies of Commonwealth regulation—and poor coordination between agencies and vocational educational courses in Australia are allowing the situation where these courses are being marketed overseas as an easy way to obtain a long-term visa to this country? I would ask the minister if he would also indicate to the Senate whether it is the case, given that all students needed visas to study in Australia, that DETYA did not at all times have the records of their addresses, student numbers or even the courses they were enrolled in? How much money was paid to the company's trust account at the time of the collapse? When was the trust account last audited by DETYA, as required by the ESOS Act? Is it the case that the college insurance company is refusing to pay students because of fraud? (Time expired)7408Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—As I have stated, the department is looking into this. There are actions under way in order to address this matter. There has been close cooperation with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This matter is being addressed, Senator Carr, and I will take your concerns on board.74087408Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is to Minister Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. The minister would be aware that there have been some highly misleading media reports this week whipped up by the Labor Party about child care and the cost of accessibility. Could the minister please inform the Senate about the Howard government's commitment to maintaining quality child care and the number of available places and centres—which, contrary to Labor Party claims, have both increased?7408Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am delighted to be able to tell the Senate what was in the departmental report I released earlier in the week. From the selective use of statistics by Senator Evans and the selective use of material by some elements in the media, the Australian public would be forgiven for thinking that things are in difficulty with child care in Australia. The case is quite the contrary. The Senate committee, one dominated by the Labor Party, found only a few months ago that the government's reforms in child care have been to the benefit of the child-care sector.There has been more money for child care in each of the last four budgets than in Labor's last year in office. There is some $5.3 billion to be spent over the next four years, including an extra $600 million for child-care benefit in the tax reform package. Government assistance has reduced the child-care cost for families. I want to set the record straight on that. A lot of senators and members of the public would not be aware of the fact that a low income family paying average fees for two children in full-time care would receive over $12,000 a year in taxpayer funded assistance. That covers about 75 per cent of their child-care costs. For a middle income family, the taxpayer funded assistance is around $10,000 or about 60 per cent of their child-care costs.From 1991 to 1998 the total number of child-care places available has grown from 168,400 to nearly 400,000—a massive growth in the child-care industry. Since 1996, despite Labor's claims, there have been 130,500 extra child-care places available for families—in other words, since this government came into office. Labor's claims that fees have gone up under this government are very misleading. Let me tell you why. If the Labor Party cared to read the report, if they were really literate and not biased, the report shows that child-care fees, which of course are not set by the government, have increased since 1991. Under Labor they went up by an average of 8½ per cent a year. Under this government, they have only increased by about four per cent a year.UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Oh!BE4Senator NEWMAN—Interesting, isn't it? The report did identify that centres had closed since 1986—280 of them in fact. But in the same sentence of the report it stated that more than 550 child-care centres had opened in the same period, a net increase of some 230 centres Australia wide. But you are not likely to hear that from the Labor Party. Contrary to the media reports, there is no evidence that increasing numbers of parents are moving to informal care. One media outlet called it black market care, which is a disgrace. Only six per cent of families claiming the child-care rebate are using informal care compared with eight per cent in 1994-95, and that is where it would show up if they were using informal care.There is quality assurance for child care. I agree with the Australian Confederation of Child Care when it said this week that Labor and the media should listen. It said that we should be talking Australia's child care up, not down. We are the envy of United States and UK researchers, yet many headlines and the Labor Party give parents the wrong idea that they and their children are not able to take advantage of the opportunities. We have a very good quality assured system. Something like 70 per cent of child-care services in Australia are now quality assured for three years, which is the maximum they can be assured for. I am proud of a good system. (Time expired)7409Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer. I seek further information about this important subject because the Labor Party has tried to assert that the majority of child-care places are in fact provided by community centres.RF4COOKSenator Cook—What's the question? You're making a statement.TH4Senator KNOWLES—Senator Cook, you should wait to hear the question. It is a very important question. Instead of bitching and bellyaching, listen to the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Knowles, your question.TH4Senator KNOWLES—I ask the minister to inform the Senate of the actual balance between the community centres and the private centres. Is it a fact that the majority of places provided for children right from babies through to after school hours care are in fact provided by the private centres which the Labor Party clearly misrepresents in every media outlet throughout Australia?7409Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—What is very significant is the growth in the private sector over recent years. The Labor Party was very keen for some time to keep the private sector out. Until we came into government, until just this last year in fact, the out of school hours care was confined to the community sector. I have now said that where a community sector child-care centre does close down the private sector may take it over and move into that area. I think that is right and proper because we have seen the benefit in the long day care sector of having competition between the private sector and the community sector. It is very valuable.Opposition senators interjecting—The PRESIDENT —Order! There are far too many people interjecting on my left.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I was on my feet to make a point of order to ask you to ask the opposition to be quiet, which you have dealt with. It is a very important question and some of us are interested in hearing the answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Newman.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The private sector provides child care for more families on low incomes than does the community based sector, contrary to the understanding of some people. They provide a great deal of care for babies, which was once the preserve of the community sector. They are a very important part of child care in Australia. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Senator Newman ran over time which took time off the opposition. A gratuitous point of order from Senator Abetz did the same thing. Can we have one more question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!Questions Without Notice7410741015:00:007410Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have some further information for Senator Bourne. I am told that the ILO considered adopting a convention on child labour at its recent meeting in June 1999. The convention was unanimously adopted by the International Labour Conference, including support from Australia. The development of the convention occurred through the standard ILO committee process. In that committee no votes were taken because a consensus position was reached between the countries. Australia supported that consensus position.The consensus position reached was that every member in the committee agreed that the convention article prevents compulsory recruitment for the use of children in armed conflict where they are aged under 18. In other words, what was agreed was that compulsory recruitment for the use of children under the age of 18 in armed conflict should be outlawed.That does not seem to be very different from Australia's position, which is, as I understand, stated in the Defence Act, that, although we can have members in the armed forces under 18—I think from the age of 17—members under 18 are not liable to serve in the defence forces in time of war. It is a slightly different way of approaching the matter but it does not seem to me to be particularly different in terms of outcome.The only other bit of information that I have that might be of benefit to Senator Bourne is in relation to the same issue and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am told that Australia is a strong supporter of the draft optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that we fully support its goal to raise the minimum age limit from 15 for recruitment into the armed forces and participation in armed conflict. We are also continuing to participate actively and positively in the negotiation of that optional protocol. I think that substantially answers the question that Senator Bourne asked.741015:03:007410Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have an answer in relation to a question asked by Senator Faulkner on Tuesday, 10 August in which he was seeking further information from the Prime Minister about discussions between the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Mr Paul Barratt. The Prime Minister has advised me, and I therefore advise the Senate, that, in his view, it would be inappropriate to comment on these matters whilst they are before the Federal Court.Miscellaneous7410741015:04:007410Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Pursuant to standing order 75(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Educa tion, Training and Youth Affairs for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 1124 which I asked on 21 June.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am afraid the minister is not present, Senator Allison. It can only be drawn to his attention, I would suggest.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I seek leave to move:That there be laid on the table by no later than 5.00 p.m. today the answer to the question on notice No. 1124.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I put the question that the motion moved by Senator Allison be agreed to. Those in favour say aye and to the contrary no. I think the noes have it.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Madam President, I raise a point of order. Someone might want to contact Senator Ellison whilst I make the point of order. Madam President, I point out that Senator Allison sought leave to move a motion which means, with respect, that the first thing you would have to do is ask whether leave is granted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—She does not need leave. She sought an answer from Senator Ellison. I do not know whether he was given notice that she would be asking the question. Not having received a response from Senator Ellison, Senator Allison is entitled to move the motion that she has just moved.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—I apologise, Madam President, because she did actually say that she sought leave.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sorry, I did not hear that, but she does not leave to do that.15:06:007411Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—I am not sure whether Senator Ellison was made aware of this matter. I certainly do not think that spending time on a vote now would be helpful in the circumstances of today. I am happy to contact him and to do our best to provide an answer to Senator Allison before 5.00 p.m. today and, if not, to give an explanation as to why we cannot. If that means that the motion passes, so be it. If we cannot meet the order of the Senate we will give an explanation, as is the usual practice in this chamber.The PRESIDENT —Senator Allison has moved a motion. To reverse that she would need to seek leave to withdraw it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order, but you might have covered the point I was going to make in that most judicious ruling that you have just made—that is, there is a motion before the chair that has been moved by Senator Allison. Unless Senator Allison cares to take some other action, the opposition is prepared, as it always is, to bring proper, objective judgment to the matter and vote accordingly.15:07:007411Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—As I understand the minister's response, he will attempt to comply with this motion in any case, in which case I suggest that we proceed with the motion.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I had already put the question and called for the noes.15:08:007411Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If it is of assistance, my office has made some urgent inquiries—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe it is competent for Senator Alston just to stand up and address—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—He would need leave.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He would need leave or he would have to take a point of order.Senator Alston interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I do not mind if you do that, but just don't abuse the Chair every time you get to your feet.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The motion is still before the Chair. It has been put.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—On the point of order that Senator Faulkner raised, the motion is before the Chair and Senator Alston is quite able to speak on the motion. Senator Faulkner is, as usual, quite wrong.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Madam President, I was seeking leave—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You were not seeking leave.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—Well, I am now seeking leave.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Alston to intervene?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—In the circumstances, yes.Leave granted.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTON—How extraordinarily gracious of you! My office has made some urgent inquiries and I am authorised to advise Senator Allison that an answer will be forthcoming before 5 o'clock. Nonetheless, if you want to persist with it, it is a matter for you.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Allison be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations741215:10:007412Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. As you would be aware—and I think most senators are aware, although perhaps not Senator Boswell—the opposition of course will grant leave for any senator to make a personal explanation. The forms of this chamber are that that be done after taking note of answers to questions without notice. That is an approach that I think you would be aware the opposition has consistently adopted. We will adopt it on this occasion for Senator Boswell and anyone else. At this time we will not grant leave but in half an hour leave will certainly be granted.Leave not granted.Questions Without Notice7412741215:11:007412Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) to questions without notice asked today.In my remarks today I want to concentrate on Senator Herron's answer to my question regarding aged care because the minister in his answer agreed with the propositions I put to him, which were that there was a great deal of confusion and concern among elderly Australians about some of the confusing and administratively disorganised correspondence they are receiving from the Department of Health and Aged Care regarding the income tested fee for residents in nursing homes. The minister conceded that up to four per cent of those residents—that is, 5,500 elderly Australians—were caught up in this bureaucratic nightmare regarding the income tested fee. He concedes there is a problem. He concedes that the minister, like everything else, is looking into it. Mrs Bishop, the Minister for Aged Care, looks into everything but nothing ever happens. This is a problem that has existed since the aged care reforms were introduced by this government.We had the advantage recently of the Audit Office report into the implementation of those reforms, which highlighted some of the problems associated with the income tested fee. That report was a useful adjunct to the Productivity Commission report which also found that the government's aged care reforms had failed, that in terms of the income tested fee they are not raising the money predicted. There is a real problem in terms of their efficiency in any event, but the bureaucratic and administrative nightmare that has been foisted on elderly Australians by the income tested fee has to be seen to be believed.It would be a joke if it were not so serious because lots of elderly Australians, people in their 80s, are getting letter after letter from the department giving conflicting advice about what their aged care is going to cost them, giving conflicting advice about previous decisions, and are getting letters arriving on subsequent days giving conflicting advice. Providers are at their wits end. Elderly Australians are confused, worried, and really concerned that they may not have anything left from their pensions or other income to support their own personal needs because they keep getting these advices about changes in their fees.The incident I referred to in my question today is just one of many. We had an elderly Australian receive advice on 12 November that they would be charged $36.75 a day, backdated to 16 September 1998. On 23 April 1999 the department advised the provider that the resident should not have paid any fee and had to have over $6,000 refunded. On 30 June 1999 the department then advised the provider that the same resident should have been paying the $36.75 a day and over $10,000 had to be collected in backdated fees. Think of the anguish, the concern, that these people have been through as the department mucked around with refunds, changing its mind, and eventually the family of this resident had to find $10,000 in backdated fees. This has caused real upset, real concern.But that is not an isolated case. Interestingly, today the minister confirmed that up to four per cent of nursing home residents—5½ thousand people—are affected by these sorts of things. In another case the department sent three letters in two days advising of three different levels of fees for the same resident. It seems to me that, even by bureaucratic stuff-up standards, that is a record. This was a letter to an Australian aged in their 80s, who is having to cope with that sort of bureaucratic confusion and worry. There have been a number of cases in recent times where the residents have actually been advised to divorce in order to better cope with the administrative complexities of this income tested fee.We also have a situation where the rate of the fee for residents who are in receipt of an overseas pension can change with every fluctuation in the exchange rate. So they are having fortnightly changes to the amount of the fee they are paying. There you are, an elderly resident of a nursing home, and your fee changes fortnightly—you get a separate advice—because the exchange rate has changed. We have examples of providers receiving advice from the department that they have to charge a resident a fee of 1c a day as a result of their calculations. The whole thing is a complete nightmare, and it is causing a great deal of stress to elderly Australians. The government has had over two years to sort out this mess. The minister said today, `We're looking into it.' They have to do more than look into it. They have to fix it, and fix it fast. It is not good enough to just say, `We're looking into it.' (Time expired)15:16:007413Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Here we go again: the Labor Party grizzling and complaining about areas and issues they had adequate opportunity to redress during their 13 years of government, and they did nothing. The motion before this chamber at the moment is to take note of all the answers given by Senator Herron today. There is a variety of them, not least the one that Senator Evans has just raised about the issue of aged care. I have to say that the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in raising the issue of aged care just rings so loudly in the ear that it is breathtaking. This comes from a mob who held the purse strings of this country for 13 years and who ran aged care institutions into the ground. So many of them did not comply with health standards, fire standards or safety standards, yet they criticise the coalition government for increasing expenditure and starting to get the issue well and truly under control. I just think that is absolutely and utterly objectionable to the Australian people at large.That is to say nothing of another question, raised by Senator Crowley of Senator Herron today, about CJD. The CJD issue is not a new one, and anyone would know that. This issue was very much a problematic one that confronted the Labor government. The previous Labor government did not do a thing about it.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Rubbish! Who instigated the Allars inquiry?TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—It is not rubbish. Senator Forshaw, unfortunately, was not part of the committee system that assessed this matter many years ago. If he had been, he would not have made the stupid, inane interjection that he did. The fact of the matter is that it was a bipartisan position, taken when the Labor Party were in government, to try to resolve this issue. When the coalition came to government, the Labor Party suddenly had a different position. They wanted a public inquiry—a public inquiry they had steadfastly resisted when in government because there was a will by both of the major parties to resolve the issue peacefully, quietly and without causing anxiety and angst to those affected. But, oh no, while there is political mileage to be made, then, once they are in opposition, the Labor Party change their tune.Today we see Senator Crowley yet again pushing this issue when in fact, through the excellent chairmanship of Labor Senator Mark Bishop throughout the inquiry into this issue, it was resolved quietly and considerately for those who were affected. It was a unanimous report, brought down by all parties, and was given due consideration by the minister. The minister then agreed to provide compensation to those affected. So this whole issue, while being exceptionally serious, was not politicised until now.There has been a change in the chairmanship of that committee. Senator Bishop, unfortunately, is not the chairman of that committee anymore; Senator Crowley is. Now, Senator Crowley is politicising the issue. I would encourage Senator Crowley not to politicise an issue that has so seriously affected so many people, not just in Australia but throughout the world, and to show a little of the sensitivity that should be accorded to those people for something that is very important to their lives and their safety and security. I think it is a very sad day when these issues are further politicised when there has been agreement by both parties not to do so.15:21:007414Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I do wish Senator Knowles would take heed of her own words. I asked a question today of Minister Herron about a matter of concern that follows from, as Senator Knowles accurately said, the agreed position of all parties on the outcome of the inquiry. It was agreed that there should be $3 million available for recipients of the pituitary hormone injections which placed them at risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. As I said to the Senate during a supplementary question today, I was assisted by Senator Herron's informa tion about the new variant CJD, which, on all the evidence, has not affected anybody in Australia.No, Senator, I am not politicising this, but you may try to make some points by doing it yourself. But I am very concerned, on the information that has come to me and, I am sure, has come to you, that the definition of `mental disorder' which makes people eligible for the funding under this $3 million is so restrictive that many of the people who otherwise might have thought they would be eligible will be denied access. What we want is confirmation that the $3 million will be available to people who have a whole variety of mental health illnesses, in the face of the evidence that they could one day get CJD.Senator Knowles is leaving the chamber, and it is entirely appropriate for her to do that. She should know that her standing up here and saying that Labor did nothing for 13 years is falling on extremely deaf ears. One of the things the Labor government did was to establish Medicare. Everybody knows Medicare belongs to the Labor government. And what did Medicare do? Medicare said that the two million Australians who had no health insurance before the Labor government came into office would never again have to worry about whether they could afford to be sick and to seek medical and surgical treatment in this country. Medicare took away that great fear for Australians, particularly for the two million people who were previously uninsured. Even Mr Howard says, `Despite everything, we couldn't possibly move away from Medicare. It is so liked by the people of Australia.'Labor did lots in government, and it had more to do, just as some of the things that the coalition government have done need to be closely examined. Senator Evans is quite right to ask, `Is this government really writing three letters about the same kinds of costs to people in private nursing homes?' If it is, most people would sensibly say, `Whoops! That's not a very good solution at all. We must have a look into that.' It would be much better to acknowledge that there has been a major stuff-up if people are getting three letters saying `pay more', `pay less' and `pay nothing'. That is only going to confuse, frighten and terrorise people. A government should be able to say, `Something's gone terribly wrong. We'll look at it.'It is very important that we are able to say that this coalition government has it very wrong when it comes to health care. The premiers of all the states and the chief ministers of the territories have asked that there be an examination of health costing and health funding in this country because they believe the situation has got to a point where there is an absolute need to have a look at what is turning out to be insufficient money to run our country's great public hospital system. Some $1.7 billion can be found to supplement and shore up private health insurance. We do not know how many extra members it has, but it will be very few. These are precious dollars that are not available to go to our public hospital system where thousands of Australians expect to be able to have excellent care—medical, surgical, childbirth, et cetera—provided to them as they have had in the past and without too much of a wait. This is now under threat because of insufficient funding.There is a need for an inquiry to look at the best way of managing precious health dollars in this country. That is why I am delighted that the Senate has approved an inquiry into the whole question of health funding, which I hope will be adequately assisted by the coalition government and will not have to enjoy the particularly stupid point-scoring political nonsense of Senator Knowles. When there are problems to be addressed—and there clearly are—the government of the day has to cop the odium attached to them. That is best done by saying, `Whoops! That's not going right. We'll fix it.' Letters to people in aged care and insufficient funding for our public hospitals deserve this government's full attention, not scornful, pointed dismissal. (Time expired)15:26:007415Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Today the Labor Party has shown how disorganised it is, because it cannot focus on one issue. It has to trawl across the whole gamut of health. It shows that it has no focus. When Senator Evans was speaking on all the answers that Senator Herron gave today, Senator Evans gave an example of a nursing home resident who he claimed had had a number of letters with different amounts of money in them. I always take these examples of the Labor Party with a grain of salt because often, when you look at them very carefully, there is an explanation.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—You were very good at exposing them yourself! You chased them!LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I did not interject when Senator Crowley was speaking. She may show me the same courtesy. Senator Crowley is now leaving the chamber—that might be useful; I will be able to get on with what I have to say. Senator Evans gave an example. We always take what they on the other side say with a grain of salt until we see the evidence to make sure it is an actual case and can be explained. When I look at that example, one wonders—and I do not know—whether it might be explained by the fact that an aged care bill was to be brought into the chamber in the last session. The Labor Party held up the bill and would not agree to it being treated as non-controversial, and that has created a number of problems for older people who are moving from one nursing home to another. Labor come in here and cry crocodile tears. They contributed to a number of problems associated with fees for older people because they failed to cooperate and assist in reducing the problem that was there. As a result of Labor's cynical and unnecessary delays, a number of older people have faced difficulties when transferring from one nursing home to another. Labor have not allowed us to implement an election commitment to ensure that residents of nursing homes who are moving from one nursing home to another are not required to pay an accommodation fee.There is not one ounce of grace or concession on the other side. I have often stood in this chamber and given credit to the Labor Party for the reforms they brought in for hostels. In Australia, we have some of the best aged care facilities at that level for people who are less frail. But Labor failed to bite the bullet when it came to reform for nursing homes. They left nursing homes in an appalling mess. They initiated a report—the Gregory report—and it was pointed out to them that 75 per cent of nursing homes did not meet building standards, that 13 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards and that 11 per cent of nursing homes did not meet basic health standards. They cut capital funding to nursing homes by over 75 per cent in the last four years of their government. There was no access to private capital for nursing homes, and proprietors had to rely on government funds. The banks were reluctant to lend money to providers of aged care on this basis.Objective standards of building quality were not enforced. There was no protection of hostel residents who were placing their money into hostels as an ingoing. There was no way of ensuring that that money was safe. They put the family home in the assets test for hostels. Fees and bonds were virtually unrestricted in hostels; they could charge any amount of fee or bond—it was not capped. There was no funding support for residents suffering from dementia. In fact, for some bizarre reason, there was an active process of not supporting dementia specific facilities. I was given the reason once, for example, that dementia residents had rights and I argued very strongly that people without dementia resident in nursing homes also had rights.The funding was based on where a person lived, not on their care needs. There was no flexibility for providers spending money on residents. Nursing homes and hostels were separated; that is, if you were in a hostel out in the country and you became frailer, there was no way—if there was not a nursing home in your small town—that you could stay there. You were not allowed to age in place; you were sent to a nursing home sometimes up to 150 kilometres to 200 kilometres away from where you lived—from where your family was and your spouse lived. (Time expired)15:31:007416Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I also rise to take note of the answers given today by Senator Herron to various questions. I should probably state that, in taking note of the answers of Senator Herron, you are really taking note of non-answers. If there is one thing constant in politics—and there is not much—it is that, whenever Senator Herron gets asked a question in question time, he cannot answer it. He either has to take it on notice and get back to the person who asked it or he stands there and fumbles around, generally reading from a brief regarding another issue. And, if he cannot find another brief, he tries to have a stab at it and reinvent history as he goes along. We saw that today. For instance, on the issue of private health insurance, once again he said, `Oh well, you know the figures are going to come out today and they are going to show that there has been an improvement in two quarters.'Of course, what he does not say is that this government has allocated in the vicinity of $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to try to prop up the private health insurance industry. And the only reason there has been any increase in the membership of private health funds—if indeed there has been—is because people know that they can join a health fund at the lowest level of cover and thereby escape the imposition of an increase in their Medicare levy, and they can still, when they get sick, go to a public hospital. Senator Herron won't tell you the full story. He just waffles around in here and tries to hold out hope that one day things are going to get better in the private health insurance industry. Under this government, they are certainly not going to get any better. We know that, and yet they will continue to waste taxpayers' dollars in huge amounts to try to prop it up while, at the same time, starving the states of much needed funds for the public hospitals.Turning to the other issue of aged care, the other thing that is constant in this place after question time is that, if Senator Knowles gets on her feet to take note, what you are going to get is the most pious protestations about the so-called wonderful things that this government has done and a bucket job that she will try to drop on the Labor Party. Again, she will always distort history. She did it in her taking note of answers today. She said that the Labor government did nothing with respect to the issue of CJD—Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. This is simply not true; it is an absolute distortion of the truth. For people who may not know, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a terrible disease that may only become evident many years after the patients under those human growth hormone programs first commenced their treatment.It was during the years of the Hawke Labor government when this situation really came to public prominence and, as a result, the Labor government and the then Minister for Health, Senator Richardson, instituted what was called the Allars inquiry into CJD. The previous Labor government took steps to deal with the issue, but it was not an issue that had commenced under the term of the Labor government. It was a problem that could be traced back many years to when Liberal governments were in power. I would not want to suggest that it was their fault because the fact was that, around the world, it was not until many years later that the medical fraternity discovered the links between CJD and some of the treatments such as hormone growth treatment and were able to take steps to try to deal with it.The question that Senator Herron was asked today was about the recommendations of the last Senate inquiry, which I sat on as a member—contrary to what Senator Knowles would try to imply—and which recommended that compensation be paid to persons who, while they may not have contracted or may not contract CJD, nevertheless have suffered psychiatric stress or trauma because of the very real fear that they may contract it and felt anguish because of the situation that they found themselves in, having been on those earlier programs.Finally, in the time that I have left, I asked Senator Herron a question about genetically modified organisms. What did he do? He stood up and essentially read back to me a communique that I had in front of me that the public would already have been aware of. (Time expired)15:36:007417McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I follow on from the previous speaker, Senator Forshaw, in his criticisms of Senator Herron. Fancy a unionist of his background coming in here and criticising one of Australia's leading surgeons with regard to health issues. He would have more knowledge about health in his little finger than you would have in your whole body, Senator Forshaw, bar your briefing notes. You have to admit that.Senator Sherry interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Sherry. Senator McGauran, would you please address the chair.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, I am sure that Senator Herron does not know too much about unionism, but he knows a lot about the health system and health care and what is needed. He is one of the most valuable senators, one of the most valuable parliamentarians and representatives in this parliament on this particular issue. On the flip side, in the other house we have Dr Wooldridge as the actual minister. You could not possibly criticise overall, Senator Forshaw, Dr Wooldridge's contribution—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. My point of order goes to relevance. Senator McGauran has criticised my colleague on the basis of his being a unionist and he has criticised Minister Herron as a leading surgeon. I would argue that that is not relevant to the debate. If it is relevant to the debate, then we should take account of the constant criticisms by Premier Kennett of Senator McGauran.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order. However, I am sure that Senator McGauran is going to get back to the answers delivered by Senator Herron.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I am, Madam Deputy President. I am setting the stage for the fact that both the minister in this chamber and the actual minister in the other house whom he represents have an expertise and know the health system back to front. Those opposite have some nerve to come in here and pretend that they know something about the health system. I can go through what these two ministers have achieved. As a National Party member, I just want to recognise what Dr Wooldridge has achieved in his short time in the ministry.I remember one of your previous health ministers. At one stage you had the nerve to make Senator Richardson the health minister. He had no expertise at all.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. My point of order is: does Premier Kennett have the appropriate qualifications to criticise Senator McGauran, his own colleague, in the way he constantly does?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Sherry, there is no point of order. What you have just put is frivolous. Senator McGauran, I am sure that you will get back to relevance in relation to the actual answers given today, thank you.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I want it on the record that, with regard to rural and regional health, Dr Wooldridge has acted like no other minister in this portfolio before has. Only last week he opened up in the City of Shepparton, in my state of Victoria, a rural health education centre where university students—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I know that a certain latitude is allowed and I know that the responsibilities of the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the minister representing him cover the areas of rural and regional health. But the questions asked today of Senator Herron, from what I recall, related to aged care, the CJD issue of compensation and the issue of genetically modified food. Private health was raised in one of the answers by the minister, but at no stage do I recall any specific question being directed to the issue of rural and regional health, being what could be described as a discrete area within health.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sure that Senator McGauran is going to address the answers that were given.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I am, Madam Deputy President. But it must be noted that Senator Forshaw stood up and criticised our performance and our ministers on this side of the house. I was simply acknowledging the good work that they have carried out in their time in the portfolio. But, as you said, the issue of the private health system was raised, and the government never misses an opportunity to make this point in regard to private health insurance: when you came into government in 1983, we had a very healthy private health system. At that time, 65 per cent of Australians were in the private health system. Back then, because 65 per cent of Australians had private health cover, there were not the same pressures on the public health system and on our large public hospitals as there are today. But by the time you left office, it was 34.5 per cent and tumbling.We immediately took on this crisis, something that you never did. I must admit that I did joke that you made Senator Richardson health minister at one stage. Senator Richardson did try to do one good thing, and that was to encourage Australians to go into the private health system. But he was quickly and duly rolled, and not just by his Prime Minister who I remember quite well said, `Senator Richardson would be a very brave man to bring that to cabinet.' And he did. He was a brave man, but he certainly got rolled. But that was the whole philosophy of the other side. You never saw the crisis in regard to private health.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—We did not waste the billion on it that you did.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Forshaw seems to think that an incentive to get people into private health insurance, a 30 per cent rebate scheme which we have brought in, is a waste of money and time. It is working, Senator Forshaw. If you look at the latest figures, we have halted the tumble. In fact, private health insurance has jumped ever so slightly.This will be a cultural change over time. These incentives take time to take effect, and you will see the uptake of private health starting to increase, certainly from the low base of 34.5 per cent that you left us with. With more incentives on the way—because Dr Wooldridge is forever studying this most important issue that is so costly to us—you will find that the percentage of the population electing to be covered within the area of private health will start to climb. Hopefully, within the next few years, it will climb up to 40 per cent at least.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations741915:43:007419Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Do you claim to have been misrepresented?YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Yes, I have been grossly misrepresented.Leave granted.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Senator Sherry today asked a question that implied that transport operators making more because of excise cuts in diesel fuel would not pass their profits on. Senator Sherry's question then led to saying that the ACCC should be able to investigate this.Senator Sherry referred to a speech I made on Monday, 28 June. He quoted from my speech as follows:When I presented this package—that is me, Senator Ron Boswell—to the transport operators out there—that is, in the country—the universal message that came through was, `This is too good. We are not going to be able to retain all the extra profits.That is where Senator Sherry cut his quote off. But in my speech I continued to quote what the transport operators had said, which was:We are going to have to renegotiate our contracts.'I then made the comment in my speech:That was spontaneous, and it went right across all those country towns.I did go out to Dalby, Goondiwindi and all the western parts of Queensland, and those transport operators, when I told them they were going to pay 23 cents a litre less for their fuel and they were only going to pay 10 per cent on their rigs and prime movers, responded: This is too good to be true. We are going to have to renegotiate our contracts and pass the profits on to our customers.They said this time and time again. I do not believe Senator Sherry is dishonest. I think he was sold a duck, but when you are going to quote and when someone hands you a question, get the full quote. The full quote is, `We are going to have to renegotiate our contracts.' It is implied that, `We are going to have to pass on the profits to our customers.'AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is implied. That's a very big word.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—It is a very clear point. There is no way I am impugning your integrity, Senator Sherry. I believe you were given a question to ask, and I do not believe that question was completely honest. If it was honest, it should have included the full quote.15:46:007419Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I claim to have been misrepresented.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Are you seeking leave?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes.Leave granted.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I claim to have been misrepresented, not once but twice, by Senator Boswell. He has referred to a quote that I included in a question to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, about the important issue of the passing on in full of tax cuts to consumers. The quote that I referred to said:. . . I went to Warwick, Goondiwindi, Bundaberg, Rockhampton and Kingaroy. When I presented this package to the transport operators out there, the universal message that came through was, `This is too good. We are not going to be able to retain all the extra profits.'That was a quote from Senator Boswell.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—`We are going to have to renegotiate our contracts.'ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, you then read the quote:We are going to have to renegotiate our contracts.The first point I would make in regard to this is that initially Senator Boswell misrepresented me by claiming that he had never said that at all in his so-called point of order during question time. That was a misrepresentation.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—No, I didn't.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That was a misrepresentation, and I believe the Hansard will show that. It is very clearly on the record of the Hansard of 28 June 1999. Senator Boswell, in claiming that he did not make that statement has, in fact, cast a reflection on me, and I claim to have been misrepresented.Senator Boswell, not once but a second time, has again reflected on me. This time he has gone to the Hansard and checked the quote, but nowhere does it say in the quote `and pass the profits on to our customers'. What we have is Senator Boswell, the Leader of the National Party, recently promoted to the position of parliamentary secretary for transport, in an attempt to get out of the difficult position—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please explain where you have been misrepresented, and do not debate the issue.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes. In making that explanation to attempt to explain, not once but twice, he has cast a reflection on me. He is incorrect. He should apologise to the Senate for misleading the Senate—not once but twice—and making a reflection on me in an attempt to get out of that difficult situation.15:48:007420Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I think there does need to be a further response, and I seek leave—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—No, there doesn't. Don't you want to go home?YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Well, there does. I have had my integrity impugned by Senator Sherry now.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for Senator Boswell to explain where he feels he has been misrepresented?Leave granted.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I did go to some length—and I suppose it is Murphy's law that your good deeds will always be unrepaid— not to attack Senator Sherry. In fact, I said Senator Sherry is an honest man.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Could you please get to where you have been misrepresented and not debate the matter, because we are getting into debate now.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Yes. I said:When I presented this package to the transport operators out there, the universal message that came through was, `This is too good. We are not going to be able to retain all the extra profits. We are going to have to renegotiate our contracts.Then the next day I said in the Senate that transport operators:. . . were openly talking about having to renegotiate their contracts. Everyone said, `We just cannot accept that our costs are going to be reduced by such an amount that we won't have to renegotiate our contracts with our customers'—because of the huge difference the GST and diesel fuel rebates would make to the cost of their bottom line.To get those two quotes, then cut and paste and come to the conclusion that the transport operators were going to keep the additional savings that the GST was going to give to them—not only on fuel but also on tyres, spares and a reduction in sales tax on prime movers and trailers—is really stretching the bow to breaking point.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—We are not getting into the debate, Senator Boswell. You should not be debating the issue.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I am sorry. I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy President. We do have to have some integrity in this parliament. Senator Sherry is a man of integrity, and that is why I am so disappointed that he was passed a question and, like a good trooper, he just went on—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please explain your misrepresentation and do not debate the issue.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I am sorry, Madam Deputy President, I will listen to your ruling and abide by it. There are two instances where I made very clear statements in this parliament that the savings on the GST will be passed on to the farmers. I recall going to Frasers in Warwick and their response was the same there.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Come on, Ronnie. You have said enough.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—This is very important.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—This is very important. It is my integrity that is being questioned. I want to make the point that I also made these statements in the News Mail in Bundaberg, where I said that the diesel excise cuts `would make transport very much cheaper, making exporters more competitive'. I said in Goondiwindi that cheaper diesel fuel `means a more efficient transport sector which should lead to lower prices for goods in the bush'. Everywhere I went, I made those statements. And everywhere I went, the transport operators agreed with me and said, `Look, we just can't take these massive cuts in our expenses without passing them on.'For you to go then and misrepresent the question is impugning not only my integrity but the integrity of all the transport operators. Senator Sherry, all I ask you to do is to be a little more careful when you get a question passed to you.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Boswell. I think you have explained where you have been misrepresented.15:53:007421Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I claim to have been again misrepresented by Senator Boswell.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Are you seeking leave?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I am seeking leave and I will be brief.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Be very precise as to where you have been misrepresented—and no debating of the issue.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I will be as precise as Senator Boswell, thank you, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No; be very precise.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I submit to you, Madam Deputy President, that Senator Boswell was precise. And I will be as precise as Senator Boswell was—otherwise you would have ruled him out of order.Again Senator Boswell has reflected on me and on the accuracy of the quote and the context of the quote. The critical sentence—which is an accurate quote from the Hansard of 28 June 1999, which Senator Boswell denied he said in question time—is `We are not going to be able to retain all the extra profits.' All the extra profits: that is a very clear quote, and Senator Boswell's explanation that we should go to another day of the Hansard and read those two sections—Senator Boswell interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Boswell, you have had your time.Senator Boswell interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! This is getting into a debate and I will ask you both to cease and desist and have your discussion outside, if it does not get more precise.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I am coming to the conclusion. I listened to Senator Boswell's explanation in silence and I just hope he would do the same with respect to me. He has cast a reflection on me and he has alleged, firstly, that my quote is nonexistent. It does exist; it is in the Hansard . Secondly, he has said that I have taken him out of context. Clearly, I have not taken him out of context. It is an accurate quote. I have great respect for Senator Boswell. I acknowledged he would make an excellent and credible witness before the ACCC's inquiry that should be conducted into the important evidence that Senator Boswell has given—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You are debating the issue now, Senator Sherry.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—about some truck operators retaining at least some of their profits. It is a very important issue.Condolences7421742110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 9 August 1999, of John Mead Hallett, member of the House of Representatives for the division of Canning from 1963 to 1974.Miscellaneous7422742215:55:007422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I table the answer to a question on notice which was the subject of an order moved by Senator Allison after question time today.Notices7422742215:55:007422Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—by leave—On behalf of Senator Allison, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will move:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on the development of Hinchinbrook Channel be extended to 21 September 1999.Leave of Absence7422Motion (by Senator Brownhill)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Chapman for 11 and 12 August 1999 on account of the ill health of a close relative.Business74227422Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—proposed:That divisions may take place after 6.00 p.m. today.15:56:007422Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am not in favour of this without an explanation. We have two hours until 6 o'clock. I think it is incumbent on the minister to give the Senate good reason for the motion that he has moved. I presume it is because he is expecting that debate is going to continue after 6 o'clock. I presume the hours are staying the same, but it would have helped to have had an explanation of this sudden move for an extension of the voting period beyond 6 o'clock, and I would be very pleased if the minister would give one.15:57:007422Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Due to the unique nature of the situation that we have before us, in that today we would normally have general business and standing orders provide that you do not have divisions after 6.00 p.m., we have instead the matter of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 . Those are bills which, due to a motion moved this morning, could well extend after 6.00 p.m. in the debate and could well require divisions. They are two very important bills, as I am sure Senator Brown would agree, and that is the reason for this action.15:58:007422O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—The opposition will be supporting the minister's motion. We understand that, as the minister has outlined, this is to permit the conclusion of the consideration of the bill now before the chamber and the message which I believe is about to be received in relation to the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999. We also understand that all other arrangements as to the business which is to be considered are unaltered by this matter and we will simply be facilitating as far as we can the conclusion of these matters today.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents7422742210000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present the publication Work of Committees for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999 and consolidated statistics for 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7422r817Billsr823742216:00:007422Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Customs Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 and the Import Processing Charges Amendment (Warehouses) Bill 1999 , together with a submission and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7423s20674237423Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present a further submission received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in response to its inquiry into the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999.Committees74237423742310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The President wishes to advise the Senate that she received two letters from minor party senators nominated to be members of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy. As there are two nominations for one position on the committee, a ballot will need to be held to determine which of the two senators is to be appointed. I understand that the Senate is not ready to proceed with the ballot at this time and that it is the wish of the Senate that the ballot be conducted on Tuesday, 24 August 1999. If there is no objection, this is so ordered.742310000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations in the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Economics Legislation CommitteeAppointed: Substitute members: Senator Sherry to substitute for Senator Murphy for the period 12 August till 2 September 1999. Senator Allison to substitute for Senator Murray for the committee's inquiry into the Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.Economics References CommitteeAppointed: Substitute member: Senator Gibbs to substitute for Senator Murphy for the period 12 August till 2 September 1999.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation CommitteeAppointed: Substitute member: Senator Ferguson to substitute for Senator Tierney for the committee's inquiry into the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 Participating members: Senators Bartlett, Bourne, Greig, Lees, Ridgeway, Stott Despoja and Woodley for the committee's inquiry into the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999.Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References CommitteeDischarged: Senator Eggleston.Appointed: Senator Tierney.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation CommitteeAppointed: Substitute member: Senator Bartlett to substitute for Senator Bourne for the committee's inquiry into the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999.Legal and Constitutional References CommitteeAppointed: Substitute member: Senator Bartlett to substitute for Senator Greig for the committee's inquiry into the operation of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program.Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteeAppointed: Substitute member: Senator Allison to substitute for Senator Greig for the committee's inquiry into the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999.National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing CommitteeDischarged: Senator Allison.Appointed: Senator Bourne. Bills7424r7797424Bill received from the House of Representatives.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.742416:02:007424Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The bill corrects an error made in 1991 by the previous government, when it inadvertently included the Elliott stockyards and dip in Schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The area of land involved is about 3.8 hectares. Regrettably it has not been possible to return this land since the error was made. This part of the amendment will commence 28 days after Royal Assent.The bill will also amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to ensure the effectiveness of sub-section 50 (2D) of the act which prevents land claims over stock routes and stock reserves. The background to this matter is that the previous government entered into a Memorandum of Agreement in 1989 with the Northern Territory Government concerning the granting of community living areas to Aboriginal people in pastoral districts in the Northern Territory. As part of that agreement, the Commonwealth undertook to proclaim a 1987 amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 preventing the making of land claims over stock routes and reserves. This amendment was made because it was never intended that stock routes and reserves should be available for claim.The amendment was proclaimed in 1990. However, it appears that the amendment was technically deficient. The effect of the amendment as drafted is that while the claims cannot be heard by the Aboriginal Land Commissioners as a result of sub-section 50 (2D), they remain registered. This means that there is doubt about whether the Northern Territory Government can deal with the land.In 1995 the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Governments reached an agreement that an effective amendment be made in exchange for the Northern Territory accepting Commonwealth proposals for amendments to the Northern Territory's Pastoral Land Act 1992. The aim of these amendments is to expedite the granting of community living areas to Aboriginal people, particularly those being dealt with by the Community Living Areas Tribunal.This part of the bill will conclusively dispose of stock route and stock reserve claims by removing any doubt about the effectiveness of sub-section 50 (2D) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.The bill will also amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to dispose of Aboriginal land claims if the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, in his report to the minister relating to the claim, finds that there are no traditional Aboriginal owners of the land or is unable to make a finding that there are any traditional Aboriginal owners to the land. Currently, the act finally disposes of land claims if the Land Commissioner makes a positive finding that there are no traditional owners. In cases where the Land Commissioner has held that it is not possible to determine traditional ownership, the claims have remained on the books.The sunset clause introduced in 1987 was intended to prevent land claims being made after 5 June 1997. However, while the Land Commissioner cannot deal with claims lodged after this date, it does not prevent such claims being lodged and remaining on the books. The bill will finally dispose of claims in the following three categories:(i) where the Land Commissioner is unable to make a finding that there are Aboriginals who are the traditional Aboriginal owners of land; or(ii) where the claim is over stock routes or stock reserves and the Land Commissioner had not commenced a hearing by 1 March 1990; or(iii) in all other cases, the claim was made after 5 June 1997.These latter amendments will commence on Proclamation, with a 12 month limit on the time within which Proclamation is to be made. In accordance with the 1995 agreement with the Northern Territory, the amendments will therefore commence at the same time as the amendments to the Northern Territory Pastoral Land Act 1992.We believe that there are no financial implications arising from this bill. I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Bills7425r8887425Bill received from the House of Representatives.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.742516:03:007425Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—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 amendments to the superannuation surcharge legislation. The surcharge has been effective at meeting the Government's policy objective of imposing a surcharge on the superannuation contributions of high income earners.Amendment of the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997The bill amends the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 to enhance the overall efficiency of the superannuation surcharge through clarifying and simplifying aspects of the legislation.The operation of the superannuation surcharge will be simplified by the removal of the requirement for superannuation funds to pay an advance instalment. Advance instalments previously determined were credited against assessments issued to superannuation funds in May 1999.The surcharge is imposed on a member's surchargeable contributions. The amendments clarify the definition of "surchargeable contributions" and how they are calculated, so that trustees of superannuation funds can have certainty about what they need to report to the Australian Taxation Office.Enhanced efficiency is achieved by:introducing a self assessment regime for specified superannuation funds; removing any doubt that surcharge applies to funds that are on a "contributions holiday";rationalising superannuation fund reporting requirements to members; andbroadening the objection rights of superannuation funds and members.Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997This bill amends the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997 to mirror the changes in the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 as far as they apply.In addition, the amendments allow members of Constitutionally protected funds who rollover a benefit to another superannuation fund to direct the new fund to pay the amount in the surcharge debt account from the benefits rolled over.Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997This bill amends the Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 to reflect the changes to the other surcharge acts.Amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936The bill amends also the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to ensure that where a member of a superannuation fund commutes part of a pension to pay a surcharge debt, this commutation is not treated as an eligible termination payment for income tax purposes. This means that members of superannuation funds are treated in the same way as members in a Constitutionally protected fund.Full details of the amendments in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.(Quorum formed)Bills7425r8417425Message received from House of Representatives returning the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and requesting the reconsideration of the bill in respect of the amendments disagreed to by the House.House of Representatives message—Schedule of the amendments made to which the House of Representatives disagrees:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 13 to 16), omit "with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament ".(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 30), at the end of the paragraph, add "or until the expiration of thirty days after the end of the term, whichever first occurs".Statement of reasons for disagreement with certain proposed amendments:Senate Amendment Number 3Amendment 3 would limit the extension of an incumbent President's term under proposed section 60 of the Constitution to 30 days.Section 60 was intended to cover the possibility that a new appointment would not be finalised before the end of the incumbent's term.This reflects the reality of the appointment process—it is not a process which can necessarily be regulated by means of strict schedules and deadlines.Section 60 should allow for the continuation of the incumbent President, who would previously have been appointed with the support of both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, beyond 30 days.This is a better option than the more cumbersome acting arrangements contemplated by recommendation 3.The arrangements contemplated in amendment 3 would be unnecessarily cumbersome in the case of a short extension.Further, it would be inappropriate to rely on a State Governor to act in the event that circumstances should force a longer extension—for example if it proved impossible to find a mutually agreed nominee.For these reasons, the House of Representatives opposes recommendation 3.Senate Amendment Number 1Amendment 1 relates to the long title of the Bill, which will of course form the basis of the question.That title as passed by the House of Representatives indicates both the nature of the change to a republic—to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a President and the proposed method of appointment.It distinguishes the proposed model from other proposed models. The wording suggested in the amendment gives no indication of the particular republic model or the nature of change.It does nothing to help voters to identify clearly what they are voting on.Research clearly shows there is a need to provide that help and to dispel misconceptions.For these reasons, the House of Representatives opposes amendment 1.Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That the message be considered in committee of the whole immediately.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Before we proceed to that, there is a statement that I would like to make on behalf of Madam President.Before the Senate proceeds to consider the message from the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendments made by the Senate, there is a matter to which I should refer. I point out to the Senate that, if the committee of the whole agrees to a motion that it not insist on an amendment to which the House has disagreed, the motion for the Senate to adopt the report of the committee will need to be agreed to by an absolute majority of the Senate. If that condition is not met, the bill as agreed to by both houses will not have been finally passed by an absolute majority of the Senate as required by section 128 of the Constitution. This principle was enunciated by a ruling of President Baker in 1906 in relation to amendments by the House to a Constitution alteration bill initiated in the Senate, and the principle is applicable to this situation.If the Senate's decision is not to insist on an amendment, therefore, the names of senators voting for that decision in the Senate will be recorded, as for the third reading of the bill, to ensure that the bill without the amendment has been agreed to by an absolute majority.Question resolved in the affirmative.16:07:007426Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I would prefer that the debate on the preamble continue so that we can deal with this matter and keep some order in the process. It may well be that the preamble legislation has to be dealt with by the House of Representatives, and this would have given the Senate the opportunity to deal with that matter and send it to the other place for consideration. I think we have got this back to front and we ought to have looked at it more carefully. But, as the Senate has resolved it, so be it.742716:09:007427Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That the committee does not insist upon its amendments Nos 1 and 3 disagreed to by the House of Representatives.I say at the outset that the other place has voted to accept a number of Senate amendments. In the debate in the House, the government acknowledged that these amendments represent a genuine improvement of the legislation. Again, I acknowledge the contribution that senators have made in this regard. I do not need to go through the amendments which the House has accepted, but I will mention two which I see as significant.One amendment, which has now been accepted, makes an important clarification in relation to the qualifications for a President. It will now be made completely clear that a candidate for the office of President must be qualified to be chosen when the Prime Minister moves the person's name and the joint sitting votes on the Prime Minister's motion but need not necessarily be qualified at the earlier public nomination stage. That opens up, I would submit, the pool of candidates that could be available for consideration, and I believe this is an aspect which will only benefit the situation. Another important amendment will put beyond doubt that the exercise of reserve powers by the President would be no more justiciable than the exercise of those powers by the Governor-General—in other words, the continuation of the status quo.However, there are two amendments to which the House of Representatives did not agree, and which the government will continue to oppose. One would limit the exten sion of an incumbent President's term, under proposed section 60 of the Constitution, to 30 days. However, the government's position is that section 60 should not be so limited. Section 60 was intended to cover the possibility that a new appointment could not be finalised before the end of the incumbent's term. This reflects the reality of the appointment process. It is not a process which can necessarily be regulated by means of strict schedules and deadlines.Section 60 should allow for the continuation of the incumbent President, who would previously have been appointed with the support of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, beyond 30 days. This is a much better option than the acting arrangements contemplated in the amendment. I remind the Senate that the amendment that was passed provided that the incoming President had to take over the reins, so to speak, at the conclusion of the incumbent's term or at the expiration of 30 days, or whichever was the sooner, which in effect meant you had 30 days within which to replace the President. It was the government's view that, in the normal course of events, any matter may arise beyond the government's control which would delay that, and it was considered inappropriate that you would have a truncation of the existing President's term of office as opposed to the incoming President's term of office. If that happened, you would have to have an acting President installed for the period.The other amendment which the House rejected relates to the long title of the bill, which will of course form the basis of the question. The government stands firmly by the question as passed by the House of Representatives. I make it very clear to the Senate, and to those who have been following this debate, that government senators totally rejected that proposal. There was some comment by the press that there was not total opposition. That is totally incorrect and false; there was opposition to that expressed in this chamber and there was no wavering from it.The title indicates both the nature of the change to a republic, to replace the Queen and Governor-General with a President, and the proposed method of appointment. The government in its proposed long title distinguishes the proposed model from other models. The wording suggested in the amendment, which the government opposed, gives no indication of the particular republic or the nature of change. It does nothing to help voters to identify clearly what they are voting on. Research clearly shows there is a need to provide that help and to dispel misconceptions. However successful the public information activities are in the lead-up to the referendum, it is a fantasy to suggest that all voters will be well-informed at the time of the vote. The government therefore will continue to oppose these two amendments. I commend the motion to the Senate.16:14:007428Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think it was only about three hours ago—or maybe four hours ago—that we deliberated on these issues before this chamber. At that time it was very clear that the view of the chamber was that the core issue—the question before the chamber of what question should go to people in the referendum—needed to be amended. For the third time the view was that the Prime Minister's preferred question for the public was not a fair question and did not adequately and fairly represent and reflect the issues that the public needed to address. We on this side of the parliament drew our inspiration not merely from the more recent deliberations of the parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Republic Referendum on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 but also from the long debate that had evolved in the community and also within this parliament.The view at the Constitutional Convention was that we would go to the model which required a nomination process which would involve the public in putting up names to be considered; a process which demanded a consensual approach by this parliament; a process which demanded that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition be involved in consultations and putting up a name to the parliament for consideration for appointment as President; a process whereby the parliament would need to support such a nomination with a two-thirds majority. There was a number of reasons why people felt that we should take that approach. Probably the main reason was that we felt that the President's position should be a unifying one and that the selection process would have ensured a great degree of consensus in the parliament, as opposed to a direct and conflicting political election process which the direct model will entail. So that was one of the reasons.The joint parliamentary committee on the republic had the responsibility of finetuning that model, the consensual appointment model. That committee reported at the start of this week with an enormously unified voice. Not all that many people on the committee disagreed with the amendments; in fact, at the final formal deliberations of the committee there was a unanimous spirit around the table as to the model and also as to how that model should be finetuned. Basically, the amendments the opposition moved in this place represented the views and the recommendations of that committee.So we have before us a proposal through the Constitutional Convention of some 16 months ago refined by recommendations from the joint parliamentary committee, and we need to ensure that that proposal is reflected fairly in the question to go before the public. The critical issue is the terminology in that question, because how the question is asked will impact on how the public responds to that question. We saw that earlier this week in the Nielson poll in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age. When the Prime Minister's preferred referendum question was put, there was some 31 per cent support for Australia becoming a republic. When the question recommended by the joint parliamentary committee was put up, that support rose to 54 to 57 per cent. So it is critical in this part of the debate to get a question that fairly represents the model that is before us.We have felt that the Prime Minister's model was selective and selectively biased against a fair reflection of the model to go before the public. The opposition also felt that the best question to go to the public was the one that came through the joint parliamentary committee. That was the question that managed to engender some 54 to 57 per cent support—of those who had made up their minds, I must say, because when one apportions those who had not made up their minds you are really looking at some 63 per cent of Australians supporting a republic if they were made to address the question developed by the joint parliamentary committee. When I say `joint', let me make it clear that we did have people on that committee from all major parties, including the Democrats. We had the left and right of parties, and at the end of the day we only had a very small number of disagreements.Our model question did not get supported in the Senate, so the opposition supported the Australian Democrats' question. I suppose it is a matter of bemusement to us all that the Australian Democrats are now trying to work out whether they want to insist on pursuing their question. We have this afternoon probably an unprecedented form of—I would not say `open government'—open opposition, where the Democrat party room has actually subsumed the Senate. Whilst this debate is going on, they have managed to move from their private party room to a much more public outing. I do not know how you normally conduct your party meetings, Senator Murray—I do not know how you normally start them—but we have never had the privilege of having our party meeting in this chamber. I am sure the government has not either. We have been as close as just outside the chamber, but this is I suppose unprecedented in Australian politics. It looks like they have broken for a cup of tea or whatever people do break for in party meetings.But it is a matter of major concern that at this stage in the debate the Democrats have come out of the private meeting—they are there for the public to see—but we do not know what they are going to do. Can I say to them: we said to you yesterday and we said to you today that we were serious about getting a fair question up before the Australian public. We do not want a situation where in the space of four hours we see a folding from the Democrats on their preferred question. I hope it does not happen—I hope you do stick to it—because I am of a view, as is the Labor Party, that the Prime Minister and this cabinet, when made to confront a fairer question than the one that they came up with, would come up with another modification. They would not stick to the question they are pursuing now. That is one thing that the Democrats ought to be aware of.This Prime Minister cannot at the end of this process leave the Australian public without a referendum on the republic. He cannot go to the public with a referendum on the preamble and not go to the public without a referendum question on the republic. That is something that the Democrats should keep in mind.If you were to flop, if you were to do a flip on this, I must say that it would be the fastest fold, the fastest turnabout, in Senate history for quite some time for a whole party to move from one position to another. It would increase the degree of cynicism in the public about what the Democrats stand for at the moment. You will have moved from the Democrats to the pussy cats if you in fact move to ditch the position you put this morning. I will stop at this stage. I am sure Senator Brown has something to say and we might get something from the Democrats as well.16:23:007429Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The Australian Greens would want me to stand very strongly on both these matters. I inform the committee that I will not be changing my vote. The formula for a question which the Democrats have had sway with earlier in the day is the simple option as against the complicated and more loaded option that the Prime Minister put forward. We have to remember that the Prime Minister wants the referendum to fail. He has said so a number of times in recent days. In those circumstances, the option of the committee where the majority has been in favour of the referendum and, I believe, in favour of the referendum passing ought to be stoutly defended.I do not have the concerns that the opposition does with the Democrats. It is a devised alternative. It is critical to the prospect of the republic coming in on 6 November that we stick with the question that they put forward. I could not see any possibility that there is going to be any change of mind. Notwithstanding the events of the GST and the environment legislation just before the winter break, I have confidence that the Democrats on this occasion will not make it three in a row but will stand firm on an important point to help this nation go into the next century with an Australian as head of state.The second matter that the House of Representatives has disagreed with is an amendment I moved on behalf of the Greens to section 61 of the proposed Constitution which would ensure that the Prime Minister could not manipulate the system to keep an incumbent President in place long after that President's term of office of five years had expired. The mechanism to do this is a simple amendment that the Prime Minister be given 30 days after the expiry of a President's term to ensure that the new President was in place. The incumbent President's office would expire within 30 days at the end of five years, and that is how it should be. I put it to the committee, which is somewhat distracted at the moment by this rapid turn of events, that we focus on this matter.In its response to us, the House of Representatives—that is, the government, which, by the way, has quite sloppily attributed the change here to section 60 of the intended Constitution instead of section 61—has said that section 61 should allow for the continuation of the incumbent President who had previously been appointed with the support of both the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition beyond 30 days. So be it, but the end of term is no longer in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime Minister, or for that matter the parliament. It is simply the Prime Minister who can allow the incumbent President to stay there as long as whoever the Prime Minister of the day is wants them to.We ought not allow that situation to arise. We ought to make sure that there will be five years notice as to the end of a term of a President and that the Prime Minister is not given this backdoor route to not selecting another President and having her or him in place in due time. It is a very important clarification of the situation. It is an important direction to the Prime Minister to make sure that they treat the matter of appointing a new President seriously and get it done in time. I stand firm on that. I certainly hope that the committee will stand firm on that regardless of what happens to the wording of the question to be put to the people of Australia on 6 November, although I reiterate that we should stand firm on that matter as well.16:27:007430Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4SAAD00—The question we have come down to this afternoon is this: do we want a referendum or not? Over the last couple of days, and indeed over the last few hours with all sorts of messages flying around, it has become very clear that the government is going to press ahead with what is a loaded question and one which we would argue, and this is why we moved to amend it, is going to bias the result. However, we do not believe that we in this place should prevent the referendum from going ahead. Therefore, unfortunately, we will not be insisting at this time.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Shame on you.8U4Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES—Thank you, Senator Brown. It is a regret to us that we have been forced into this position by a Prime Minister who has made it very clear time and time again that he does not want a republic. But I do think that the Australian people expect us to go ahead with a referendum on 6 November. Obviously his alternative was going to be to reject it again, which is what we would have expected to happen later tonight, but then consider the option of leaving it for six months—in other words, three months later—with the question passed in the House of Representatives. While that is a possibility—indeed, I think it is probably a very remote one—I suspect that the majority of this government would want to put to one side permanently this whole issue of a republic.What has been a difficult decision for us is one, however, that all of us have taken together. As you know, we spent some time this afternoon discussing and rediscussing what we were planning to do. We still firmly believe that the question we posed—the simple question asking the Australian people whether or not they wanted a republic and then leaving the arguments to the yes and no case—was the best way to proceed. We have to keep in mind that we have a government, particularly a Prime Minister, that does not want a republic. As I think all my Democrat colleagues agree, the Australian people at least expect the referendum to go ahead. The course of that is probably going to be influenced by our decision now to let the loaded question proceed, but that is our decision today.16:30:007431Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What a party of bucklers. As I said in a previous debate, the Democrats are becoming political poodles—people who run around barking at everybody and then jump into the first lap available. Certainly, they take the first direction available. I believe the Prime Minister would have backed off on this issue—as he has done on a number of other related issues in the last two weeks—because he knows the political cost of it if he did not.It is a shameful outcome as far as the Democrats are concerned. It is going to make the question more difficult. It is going to increase the no vote. It is going to increase the likelihood that we will not get the result we want, even though I have faith in the Australian people to vote the way their own feelings on this dictate, notwithstanding the impediment of the long question put before them.Here we have a pattern which is now becoming the pattern of the Democrats—that is, a difficult situation, a public commitment to a course of action, then a little pressure applied by the Prime Minister and they buckle. The question is: why put up an alternative to the Prime Minister in the first place if you do not have any intention of standing firm on it? These are important matters. This is not just an alternative form of words. These are alternatives which can determine the outcome of whether or not we become a republic after 6 November. Collectively, the Democrats have taken a weak course of action. Collectively, they are frightened by the prospect of a Prime Minister making a mistake. They are covering inexcus able courses of action that the Prime Minister might take in the future.Do they really believe that the Prime Minister would have called off the referendum because he did not get his way with the words? Of course, he would not have. He would have acceded to this form of words if the Democrats stood firm. He does not have to now. He will say, `I wasn't going to change my mind,' but he would have. It would have been better for the Australian people; it would have been better for the course of this historic decision that we have to make. Eighteen million Australians face a more difficult question because of the perceived intransigence of the Prime Minister and the historic weakness of nine Democrat senators. I expected better of them.I thought after the reaction to their cave in on the GST that they might have stood more strongly this time. I thought after their cave in on years of principle in the environment legislation, which they passed—including its forest destructive components—just before the winter break, that they might have had time to think about that and strengthen a bit. Now three times in a row they have caved in on matters of enormous importance to their own constituency and to Australians. Ten to 15 million voters are going to have a more difficult question to face because of the irresolute, vacillatory and, finally, cave in nature of the Democrats. So be it.It has been an interesting debate. I am glad we are going to have a referendum. I am sorry that the Democrats could not make it easier for the Australian people. I am sorry that they can come up with good suggestions but are equally inclined then to fail to stand by those good suggestions, as is the case here.We know now the pattern for the next two or three years in this place. The Prime Minister certainly knows what to do if he wants the Democrats to cave in. He simply has to stare at them and they will look down, they will look away first, they will back off. That is part of the prescription in this place. The Democrats have to live with it.16:35:007431Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also express my amazement at this amazingly pathetic climb down. It was just a little while ago that we were talking about whether the Democrats would or would not climb down, and they assured us that they would not. What have they done? They have come in here and said, `The Prime Minister has said that we will not have a referendum; therefore, we will do what he wants.' The old sheepdog started barking and the Democrats started scurrying away. Aren't you an easy touch for the Prime Minister? His master's voice speaks and the Democrats follow.Your supporters may well ask: what do you stand for anymore? What do you stand for when you say yes? What do you stand for when you say `green'? What do you stand for when you come in here and say you will do one thing? Forever after this, whenever you come in here and say, `We believe in this,' we will all go away thinking, `They believe in this, but then again they might believe in that and then again they might believe in nothing.' That is exactly the message you are sending out to your supporters. What does this do to your credibility? This is the biggest backflip in the Senate's history for quite some time. You are all sitting there asking us to believe that you have merit on your side because the Prime Minister has said, `If you do not agree with what I say you will not get a referendum.'Do not forget that 60 per cent of Australians want a republic. This Prime Minister has been pushed around by public opinion time and time again over recent weeks. He has changed the question in response to public opinion. Do you think he can get out of this place today, tomorrow, this weekend and say, `Look, they did not agree with what I wanted so they are not going to have a referendum'? Do you think he can get away with that politically and credibly? Of course he cannot. If he can get away with it for the first five or six hours, depending on what happens in the press gallery, he would not get away with it for too long in public because the public reservoir of support for a republic has been strong and continues to be strong.If he wants to continue to offend 60 per cent of Australians by saying, `You cannot have a referendum even though I promised you could have one,' then it will be on his head. But no, the Australian Democrats basically said, `The PM's barked at us and we have scurried away.' What do you stand for? You have devalued your status, devalued your credibility and devalued the concept of negotiation. Bring back Senator Harradine to hold the balance of power. He knew how to negotiate. He knew how to get things out of government. He knew you did not buckle on day one. I will say this, Senator Harradine, although quite often you disagree with me and you disagree with me now: you would develop your position and you would hang out and you would get a good price; you would not sell out at bargain basement prices, as the Australian Democrats have done. As I said of the Australian Democrats, you are sending the message to your supporters that you do not have any willpower and you do not believe in anything.I said yesterday that in the skills of negotiation the Australian Democrats have exposed themselves as no longer being the fairies at the bottom of the garden but being this Senate's child-care centre. I think government in this country needs a greater degree of maturity in approaching issues like this. We have wasted the time of this parliament today because you have not known what you stood for: you stood for one thing this morning and another thing this afternoon. If that is the way you want to continue running the operation of this Senate—coming on after the GST, after the environment legislation—you will continue to be easy meat for the government and you will continue to be easy meat for a pernicious John Howard agenda.At the end of today, had the Prime Minister walked away and said, `No referendum,' he could have looked to the rest of Australia a stodgy little spoiler. Let us remember: each part of this process, each episode, each chapter, he has tilted the balance: pro-monarchist, anti-republican. You have just given him a green light to do it at the final count. If it is a close count, it will depend on the question asked. That is pretty clear from the Neilsen polls. If that question asked goes against us then we will look back to this day when the Democrats folded on a core issue of fairness and reasonableness.16:40:007433Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I want to respond briefly to some of the fairly predictable political attacks. Equally predictably they had little policy substance to them. I have commented a few times in other debates on Senator Brown's contributions in previous recent debates in this place. In response to him, I said that he had a great career as an environmentalist but had been a politician for a very long time now and, as often happens with people who are politicians for a long time, he tends to find it hard to think of what else he can do. But he is obviously starting to line up for another career now. He is warming up to his new career as a fortune teller, having predicted that without a shadow of a doubt, unequivocally, the PM will back down, that if we insist on this as a Senate the PM will back down. I am glad you have those skills as a fortune teller. Perhaps you now have another career that you can move on to.He also stated that he is glad we are going to have a referendum, yet he wants us to vote in a way that jeopardises that possibility. Nobody knows for sure what the Prime Minister would or would not have done. But the Democrats specifically tested him today by putting forward what is clearly a fairer question, and his response and the response of the House of Representatives was not to support that fairer question. But the bottom line is that I am certainly glad—and I am sure the public will be glad—that they are going to have an opportunity to vote on whether or not we will become a republic.Senator Brown says he is glad, so I am pleased that he is happy that the Democrats are facilitating and ensuring, not taking any risk at all, that that will be the outcome, that the public will have a chance to have their say. As someone who will be urging them to vote yes—as I think the previous Democrat speaker, Senator Lees, and her deputy, Senator Stott Despoja, will also be doing—I will be keen to ensure that the benefits of Australia moving to a republic are explained during the course of the referendum campaign.The other important point I want to make is in relation to the suggestion that somehow or other, because the Democrats decided in this case that it was not appropriate to insist, that means it is not clear what we stand for. I would be happy if Senator Bolkus wants to take that as a standard of measurement for the ALP. I hope that means that they will never, ever at any stage in the future decide and have never, ever at any stage in the past decided not to insist on amendments. Even in the short time I have been in this chamber I know the opposition have decided at times not to insist on their own amendments. That is part of the political process when you have to weigh up whether or not something is worth risking losing altogether or worth persevering with. The Democrats' view is that it was not worth risking losing the possibility of the Australian people having their say on whether or not we become a republic. I am sure they will be quite pleased that the politicians have ceased arguing about this and that they will get a chance to have a debate and that it has been moved away from the politicians.It is probably worth reminding Senator Brown, who also continued with the predictable words about backdowns and shameful cave-ins, et cetera, that it was his change in position, as he reminded this chamber yesterday, that enabled the Constitutional Convention to occur. The Senate was not supportive of the proposal that was being put forward in that regard and he obviously made a considered judgment that, whilst he did not support the proposal that was being put forward as an ideal approach, it was better to have some sort of convention than not. That was a position he took; others disagreed. But I think it was quite valid for him to do so. Indeed, as part of that convention, that highlights why we have had so much consultation on this issue for so long. The issue of the question, amongst many others, has been part of the public consultations, part of the parliamentary committee inquiry.He made a choice at that time to change his position. I do not know whether or not the Democrats or others abused him and called it a `shameful sell-out', `backdown' or `cave-in'. Certainly he felt he could justify that change of position to enable something to go ahead that he did not see as ideal but did not want to risk losing altogether. This is something that the Democrats believe we can justify because we do not believe it is worth jeopardising the Australian people losing the opportunity to vote on whether or not we move towards a republic. I, for one, certainly hope that they vote yes to that question and we can move on to some of the other important issues that the nation needs to address in the next century.16:46:007434Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise to support the comments of my colleagues. A majority of the Democrat party room has determined that we will not insist on the amendment, and I am very conscious of the fact that it is my amendment that I moved on behalf of my party and that it had the unanimous support of my party. It is very wrong and quite inaccurate for any honourable member in this place—and I defy any honourable member and anyone else in the community or the media—to suggest that we indicated earlier in the week that we would not consider our position after the debate took place this morning or after the vote was taken. All along we have indicated that the last thing we wanted to do was to jeopardise the process or the passage of this legislation. I would like nothing better—in fact, it is incredibly tempting—than to insist, but this is not a game. This is not a debate that is worthy of catcalls, poodles, and the whole menagerie that has been thrown at us this afternoon. This is not a game; this is quite a serious vote and a referendum is quite a serious event.I am in a rather invidious position because, as a member of the yes committee, I want nothing better than a referendum to take place and for us to have a republic. I know perfectly well that a question plays a pivotal part in that process. That is why we sought to ensure the fairest, simplest and most accurate question be put before the Australian people.I think the Prime Minister should hang his head in shame. He is not a statesman. He did not respond to an amendment that was passed earlier by the majority in this place by saying, `Yes, it is appropriate not to buck precedent.' He has not given the people who want to push the yes case the opportunity to frame that question or, at least, to ensure that the question is framed in the most favourable way, a la: do you support a free and democratic election? We know that there is a bias against winning constitutional referenda in this country. We know how difficult it was to get eight out of 42 over so many years and we know how important the question was to that process. That is why the Democrats sought to break a stalemate we saw occurring earlier this week.It is unfair to suggest that we said, `Yes, we will take this to the end. We will go to the barricades because our question is the best.' I indicated, on behalf of my colleagues, that we were very concerned that this might disrupt the referendum process in some way. This is not a game, as a previous speaker seemed to indicate; this is not us being weak. This is a tough decision and one that we have spent a lot of time debating and discussing.The Prime Minister has not stared me down; the Prime Minister does not stare at me. He does not seem to invite me into his office on too many occasions to discuss these types of issues. But I and my colleagues have had to juggle the possibility that not only would the question not be changed but also that a referendum would not take place. Contrary to the comments of Senator Brown, or his interjections in relation to consultation, there have been many views expressed to us this week from different members of the community through different media—through letters, faxes, emails and phone calls. People are concerned that this process may be held up in some way. I have spoken to republicans who would dearly love a delay. I would not mind an extra three to six months to ensure that we win this campaign, despite the odds, and there are great odds.We have a biased question; we have a Prime Minister who said that he would opt out of this debate and take a back seat, and yet has interfered every step of the way. Probably for one of the first times in our history, we have a Prime Minister who is putting forward a question but is not prepared to support it. I think it is shameful and I do not think the fault should lie with non-govern ment parties in this house. We should not squabble amongst ourselves during this debate, and nor should we squabble among ourselves as republicans because there is a clear majority in this chamber—and I include, of course, government members in that list.We should put the fault where it belongs: with a Prime Minister who is scared that this country might move into the next century and the next millennium with an Australian head of state. He is scared that we might throw off his notions of a 1950s Australia and white picket fences and get the opportunity to move into the rest of the world among a friendly family of nations in the Commonwealth as a mature, independent and confident nation. He is so scared that a clear majority of Australians want that opportunity that he is prepared every step of the way in this process to muddle, obfuscate and rig the question. That is shameful and the fault lies with him.The Democrats, as the expert legislators I like to think we have been over the last 20-odd years, have done our job. We have tried to ameliorate the worst parts of legislation. We have tried to rectify the defects—and there are some in this model being presented to Australians—and we have tried to ensure a role for the Senate in the dismissal process. We have tried to stop the entrenchment of the two-party system through this process of appointment and we have tried very hard to ensure that the power of the executive is not embellished and increased and put into our Constitution in a way it has never been before. We have tried to ensure that the question is simple, fair, accurate, straightforward—all of these things—and we have lost. We acknowledge that.Unfortunately, I do not think that pressing this amendment now will necessarily change some of those factors. People know that while I belong to a pro-republican party—and certainly I suggest that every colleague I sit with today is a republican—that does not mean we do not have commitments to different models or that we have not voted differently from each other today.The majority of my colleagues opposed the legislation in its final reading today with good reason. There are flaws in this model. But I suspect many of us will go to the campaign in November and, I hope, vote yes despite some of those obstacles. I am not sure whether those obstacles would be ironed out with the pressing of this amendment. I do not know for sure, because I am not a fortune teller like Senator Brown. My colleagues and I have made the decision today that we are not prepared—in some ways unfortunately—to play constitutional chicken with the Australian people. We are not prepared to test the limits of this one, just in case the Prime Minister calls our bluff—that is, the bluff of all those who voted for the amendment today—and just in case he says that there will be no referendum. The Australian people now expect that referendum. As much as many of us would like to see it as a plebiscite, with a different question or with a different model, I think we have to proceed. But it is a risk, especially for those of us who will be voting yes and who know how important the weight of the question and the title is.We are not frightened of the prospect of the Prime Minister staring us down, as Senator Brown would have us believe. We are genuinely frightened by the prospect of no referendum and that we may be giving up an opportunity to vote on this issue. That aside, judging from community feedback, we would be denying people the opportunity that they expect on 6 November. Do not get me wrong, Mr Temporary Chairman: my faith—such that it is—in this government and in the Prime Minister is completely shaken. They had a better question and an appropriate title, and yet the government and the Prime Minister chose to reject that, not us. The fault clearly, fairly and squarely lies with the Prime Minister. My colleagues understand that, and for those reasons we will not be voting to press the amendment, no matter how tempting or unfortunate that may be.16:54:007435Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—We all know the Constitution now provides for the House of Representatives, where the Prime Minister has the majority, to go it alone. As has been stated by previous speakers, if these amendments are pressed, the Prime Minister can call our bluff. He knows—as well as anybody who has been around here for a while knows—that could be done in such a way that the question and other matters relating to the establishment of a republic could go to the people in a less satisfactory manner than we have here. The best that can come out of it is what the government is prepared to do.Give the Prime Minister the opportunity and there is no doubt in my mind that one of two things would happen. One, he would say that he did his best, that he tried to get it through the parliament and that he did not succeed. Then he could put the matter aside. Two, either he could go with what we have here or he could go with a more unsatisfactory proposition. As Senator Lees said, this is either a referendum or not a referendum. Some of the things that have been said about the Australian Democrats in regard to this matter are a bit unfair. Senator Bolkus, you may have wished me well in respect of your suggestion wishing that I come back to the balance of power—I would gratefully decline that invitation. If the motion needs the 39 votes here, I am intending to not insist upon the amendments that the Senate has included in the proposal that went down to the House of Representatives and came back with the House of Representatives disagreeing.16:58:007436Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I have a couple of points, Mr Temporary Chairman, in reply to Senator Harradine.6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—I thought you had a plane to catch.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—The 4.30 plane has gone; the 6.30 one is still to go.BH4HILLSenator Hill—The 5.30 is warming up.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—The 5.30 has just about gone—that is right. I am resigned to spending another night with you, Senator Harradine. I have to explain that somehow to my wife; I will be on the phone very soon. A couple of points need to be made. There are two amendments. I traverse the referendum question first. The opposition's view is that, if the Democrats change their minds—and they have indicated they will—and support the question proposed by the government, we will not be frustrating the legislation by insisting on the other amendment that was carried by the Senate. That was amendment No. 3, which gives a 30-day period after the expiration of a President's term for a replacement President to be appointed. We do not think that issue is sufficient to frustrate the workings of this place and keep it going any longer.The other point that I wish to make in respect of your point, Senator Harradine, is that it is a legal point that is sustainable. You are right that, in terms of the Constitution, the Prime Minister does have that power. But I think he would be seen in an enormously bad light by the public and media were he, at this stage of the process, to grab the ball and run off on his own with it and put his own question to the public. I think that was an option which was probably not politically available to him. The opposition considered that option, but we thought that it was something that was not within the bounds of political acceptance. We therefore come to facing this issue now and, as I indicated earlier, we will be pursuing our position in support of the Australian Democrat amendment and withstanding the motion moved by Senator Ellison on behalf of the government.This also comes on a day when there has been an enormous reaction across the country to the other action taken by the Australian Democrats—that is, action to replace `custodianship' with `kinship' in the preamble. I will not discuss the preamble now—we have some time for that later, although not much time—but this does raise the question of process. These are issues that go to the character of the nation and to the building of national unity and spirit. In such processes as we have had today and yesterday, we have proposals being developed under threat by a Prime Minister and proposals being developed in secret. And, with respect to the preamble, at a time when Australia was starting to realise that you do not take decisions affecting indigenous Australians without full consultation—something that Senator Ridgeway has impressed upon me quite consistently over the years—you have junked those sorts of principles on the most important legislation. It has been developed in secret and under threat, and that does not do much to build the character of this nation and pride in our institutions and the direction in which we are going.It would be a lot better if we had a Prime Minister who was prepared to take charge of a progressive forward agenda for Australia, not one who keeps on falling back to the forties, fifties and sixties for his inspiration. It would be good to have a Prime Minister who was prepared to represent and reflect the aspirations, will and direction of the public, not one who always wants to take us back. That is the point of regret I make at this particular part of the debate.17:03:007437Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The other matter that is important here, and Senator Bolkus referred to it, is the Greens amendment that the house has disagreed with: that the Prime Minister should not have the opportunity to extend a President's tenure more than 30 days beyond the five-year period in office. If we do get a rogue Prime Minister—like a Joh Bjelke-Petersen or a Robin Gray—in office, that is just the sort of manipulation that could occur. This is an important matter. I am sorry that the opposition is not going to insist on it, because I think, under the circumstances, that it is one that the Prime Minister would accede to at this stage.It seems to be a technical matter at the moment but, further down the line, it would be very important to be able to put a halter on a Prime Minister who was doing the wrong thing and who had no restraint put on him, such as in the appointment of a President, by the parliament or the Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt that the Democrats would have buckled on it, however, in the mood that they are in at the moment. I just want to put it on record that, in the circumstances, this amendment is not getting the important consideration that it ought to. I want it put on the record very clearly that my position is not to accede to the message from the House of Representatives on either of these points of dispute with the Senate. Question put: That the motion (Senator Ellison's ) be agreed to. 17:09:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)42Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.29Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.Heffernan, W. Crowley, R. A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported.7437Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That the report from the committee be adopted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In accordance with the requirement for an absolute majority for the question to be passed, to which I referred earlier, the bells will now be rung for four minutes and the names of senators voting will be recorded.The following 70 senators voted for the motion—Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Macdonald, I. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Minchin, N. H. 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.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.Bills7438r8977438Debate resumed.17:25:007438Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In my reply, which ends the debate on the second reading, can I say that the vote that we have just seen will ensure that there is a referendum and that I think that is an historic occasion for Australia. In light of that, I would urge senators opposite and those who are not minded to support the preamble proposed by the government to do so, because it would provide an opportunity to put to the people of Australia the question not only of whether Australia becomes a republic but also of whether for the first time they would like have a preamble in the Constitution. I commend the preamble.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I will now put the question that the amendment moved by Senator Cook and read out previously be agreed to.17:30:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)27Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.42Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Crowley, R. A. Heffernan, W.McKiernan, J. P. Chapman, H. G. P.O'Brien, K. W. K. Campbell, I. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7439The bill.17:35:007439Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I think there are three amendments to this bill. There is Senator Brown's, there is one in the name of Senator Schacht and there is one in my name as well on behalf of the opposition. I suggest that we proceed with Senator Brown's first.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—We do have a running order, Senator Bolkus.7439Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—It was presented to me just as I was speaking, so I anticipate that Senator Brown's amendment is the one that we should proceed with.17:36:007439Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:Schedule, page 3 (lines 4 to 26), omit the Preamble, substitute: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 is where we have the clear option of the preamble that I have spoken about quite frequently during this debate. I will read it for a final time. It is half the length of the Democrat-government preamble, it is more succinct and it is better. The preamble reads: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 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.I recommend that preamble to the committee. For the sake of Hansard , I would point out again that the `I' in indigenous is a capital.17:37:007439Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I will be brief because I think we have had much of this debate before today, and Senator Faulkner has put the opposition's position on record with respect to it. The amendment moved by Senator Brown basically reflects the preamble that was pulled together by a number of people earlier this year. Gareth Evans was principally involved, but we did have Senator Brown and some Democrats—I think Senator Stott Despoja—sign up to it. We think it is a much better preamble than the one that has been concocted over the last few days. One could go into great debate about this but I think at this stage of the process there is probably no usefulness in doing that other than to say the Australian Labor Party supports Senator Brown's preamble.17:38:007439Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Just for the record, the government opposes this amendment. We, of course, have an alterna tive preamble which we believe is more than adequate.17:38:007440Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—This is not my first speech. I also agree with Senator Bolkus that much of the debate has been had today. I just want to respond with some further information about kinship. I want to put on the record that kinship, as described by Nancy Williams, the anthropologist for the Woodward royal commission, is clearly about rights that include those of ownership, occupation and use. I think that is useful for the Hansard .17:39:007440Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—As Senator Bolkus said, we support Senator Brown's amendment to the preamble. This preamble was released in April of this year with the support of Mr Gareth Evans, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Bob Brown. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, there is no comparison in the quality of this preamble compared with the shambles we have had put before us by the government and the Democrats. This preamble is memorable. It will be easily learned by school kids. It will be one that can be read around the world. When people read our Constitution they will say, `That has meaning. It has a rhythm about it, not only in its content but in its language. It is a nice piece of English prose.' I think those are important issues.I think it much more succinctly describes us than the wordy compromise that has come forward from the government and the Democrats. It has simple sentences and simple statements. It covers every aspect that most of us have been trying to express in the debate about what we need in a preamble. It is a great pity that, in the rush to get this through to save the Prime Minister's skin, this preamble has been turned aside in favour of one that will sink into obscurity and never be remembered again, even if it is carried by the referendum in three months. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.17:45:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)25Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hutchins, S. P.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McLucas, J. E.Murphy, S. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.West, S. M.40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Coonan, H. Crane, W.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Cook, P. F. S. Vanstone, A. E.Crowley, R. A. Campbell, I. G.Faulkner, J. P. Chapman, H. G. P.Hogg, J. Eggleston, A.McKiernan, J. P. Heffernan, W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.17:49:007440Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1498:Schedule, page 3 (line 12), omit "war", substitute "conflict".This amendment seeks to overcome what clearly is a drafting error—that is the best thing I can say for it—made by the government and the Democrats in their haste to cobble together this awful preamble. I refer to that part of the preamble which says:never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;My colleague Graham Edwards, the member for Cowan in the other place—a Vietnam veteran who, as we all know, was very badly wounded in that war—pointed out that the Vietnam War was never a declared war. There are many other conflicts that our soldiers have been involved in since Federation which were not actually formally declared wars. Even in recent years our servicepeople—men and women—have been part of UN peacekeeping forces. You would not say that they were involved in a war, but they were carrying out the duties of the United Nations, in which we were very proud to participate. Those servicepeople have distinguished themselves and Australia greatly by the way in which they provided that service in various, sometimes remote, places.A number of cases come to mind. We had the involvement of our Australian troops in the Cambodian peace settlement. We had Australian troops in Namibia. We had Australian troops in Western Sahara. We had Australian troops who, via our involvement with the British Army, have actually served in Bosnia, Macedonia, the Balkans, Iran, et cetera, and have all distinguished themselves very well. I have not been given a comprehensive list of the peacekeeping forces that we have served in, but there is one thing that is for certain: unfortunately, there will be further demand on Australian servicepeople—men and women—to serve in UN peacekeeping forces into the next century. They are not declared wars, by any definition, but they are conflicts and our service people put their lives at risk.We also, of course, had—apart from the Vietnam War—during the fifties and the sixties the Malayan emergency and the Indonesian confrontation. Again, they were not declared wars; they were insurgencies, whatever form of words you use. We believe that the word `conflict' is a much better description than the word `war'. A Vietnam veteran like Graham Edwards feels it necessary to raise in parliament and in public that as a Vietnam veteran he feels the use of the word `war' rather than the word `conflict' could be taken as discrimination against the service of Australian soldiers in the Vietnam War.The controversy in Australia about our involvement in the Vietnam War by those of us, including myself, who strongly opposed our involvement in that war in the 1960s was never directed against the servicemen. We accept that some of those were unfortunately conscripted, often against their will, to go and fight. We never directed our opposition to their service. They were called on by the government of the day to go and serve. In our view, it was the government of the day that was at fault.Subsequently, Vietnam veterans have always felt that their contribution and service to their country as called on by the government was never properly recognised in the same way as the service people returning from the Great War, the Second World War and the Korean War were accepted and recognised. Even today as shadow minister for veterans' affairs I come across groups of Vietnam veterans who still feel anguish that they were forgotten and ignored on their return. It was not until the late 1980s and the coming home march that recognition towards those servicepeople started for their contribution in the Vietnam War as required by the government.I think Graham Edwards has it right. We ought to get these things correct in the preamble so we do not use in an untoward or unwitting way a word which says that there are two levels of acceptance in that the First World War and Second World War were real wars but the Vietnam War was not a real war because it was not declared. We should never distinguish between those in the services who, to use that phrase, put themselves in harm's way in the service of their country as required by the elected government of the day, whatever that controversy may mean.Again, I emphasise to the committee that the drafting of this preamble, which was obviously rushed and made with no consultation, proves this point: when you do it that way, you make bad mistakes. This is going to be put to the people to vote on in the referendum to be made part of our Constitution. As I said when speaking in favour of Senator Brown's amendment of the preamble drafted by Gareth Evans, Senator Brown and Senator Stott Despoja, when you take time and have a wider consultation you get a better result compared to this one. Therefore, on behalf of the veterans community in particular, I commend this amendment to the committee.17:55:007442Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—For the record, the government opposes this amendment. The comments I made previously still stand. The term `war' is used in a generic sense as it is used in common parlance. The member for Cowan has been referred to, but the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, was a veteran as well. He has said that he is quite happy with the term `war'. It is obvious we are not going to please everybody all the time, and the Prime Minister has already said that, but we believe that this is an appropriate term.Amendment not agreed to.17:56:007442Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicate that we did not force this to a vote but lost it on the voices. I now move:Schedule, page 3 (lines 15 and 16), omit "Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands", substitute "Indigenous Australians as the original occupants and custodians of our land".This is an amendment which has had a degree of discussion today both in the Senate and in the media. It basically deals with how we best reflect the role and history of indigenous Australians in the preamble. We are quite disappointed with the secret deal that has evolved with the word `kinship' being used by the Prime Minister and the Australian Democrats.I will not talk at length on this other than to put on the record the statement put out this afternoon by a number of indigenous Australian leaders. I must congratulate Senator Aden Ridgeway for bringing together the A team and the B team in Aboriginal politics. Parry Agius, Richie Ah Mat, Gatjil Djerrkura, Pat Dodson, Dr Mick Dodson, Norman Fry, Olga Havnen, Michael Mansell, Dr Lowitja O'Donohue, Dr Charles Perkins, David Ross, Archie Tanner and Peter Yu have all said this:The proposed question on the draft preamble to the Australian Constitution should be dropped from the forthcoming Republic referendum.This was the unanimous position adopted by Indigenous leaders during a national telephone conference today.The conference agreed that the consultation process over the draft preamble which was released by Prime Minister John Howard was fundamentally flawed.The preamble, which was meant to be an inspirational document to unite the nation, had been drafted behind closed doors without any meaningful consultation with the Australian people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.The draft document, which is insensitively drafted, also fails to recognise the inherent and distinct rights of the first nations which have been recognised by the High Court.Given the flaws in the process, the absence of any real recognition of Australia's first nations and the desperate attempts to rush the Legislation through the Parliament we call for the preamble question to be dropped from the forthcoming referendum.There should be one question: Should Australia become a republic?I do not think I need to add much more to the debate than that.17:58:007442Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This amendment is very similar to the next amendment I will put forward on behalf of the Australian Greens. I will take the committee's decision on this as being an indicator of the fate of my alternative amendment. I support this amendment very strongly, not least because of the statement that Senator Bolkus has just read out which does indicate the feeling of many indigenous leaders in this country—that is, that the preamble option coming from the government and the Democrats does not represent them. We ought to listen very carefully to that strong message. The alternative form of the preamble which was just voted down would have met the concerns. This one does not, but the amendment that the opposition is putting forward would at least rectify to some degree the failure of words in the government-Democrat proposal. 18:00:007443Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—This is not my first speech. I respond by saying that I accept the comments made by Senator Nick Bolkus and I thank him for them. It is encouraging that indigenous people are coming together on particular issues. I might make the point that I have also spoken to those people and there is an acceptance of an understanding that the preamble is not the place to deal with the question of rights whilst there is some discussion or debate on the wording itself.I make the point again that the words that were put forward as amendments are poor choices. They are words that do not reflect the proper relationship. They are words that, in my view, do not come to the standard that indigenous people ought to expect. So, we can only ever agree to disagree on this occasion. However, I do not believe any relationship has been soured. I point again to the fact that Yolngu people in the Northern Territory relied very heavily upon kinship as a word that connoted rights, including that of ownership, occupation and use, and that that was used very heavily in the Woodward royal commission report which led to the Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. I think that ought to be noted.18:01:007443Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to support the comments made by Senator Bolkus. As the Labor senator from the Northern Territory and having a very close relationship with the Yolngu people in the Northern Territory and being sent to represent them in this chamber, I have had discussions with them on a number of occasions since the issue of the preamble was first aired earlier this year. One strong message that they have sent to us today—and particularly to me—is that the issue of custodianship of their land is something that they were hoping this government might recognise in the move with this preamble.There is one sad thing about what we are doing this week. In one way, we are looking at trying to modernise our Constitution, but we seem to be doing it in such a rush that we want to do it for only about 70 per cent of our population. We do not really want to sit down and consult with all of the indigenous people in this country.It is a shame that this is being rushed through. I want to reiterate my support for the sentiments expressed by Senator Bolkus and the letter that has been sent in by the indigenous leaders in this country. On behalf of the indigenous people in the Northern Territory, I point out that I will not be supporting this preamble. I will be supporting our amendment.18:03:007443Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this amendment. I stand by the comments already made in relation to the reasons for the government's choice of words and, in particular, rely on the comments made by Senator Ridgeway earlier in an excellent speech on why `kinship' was preferable to `custodianship'.Amendment not agreed to.18:03:007443Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicate that we will not be calling a division at this stage of the process but will be calling one at the third reading stage.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, you indicated that you will not be moving Greens amendment No. 2. Would you move amendment No. 1.18:03:007443Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Greens amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule, page 3 (line 5), omit "With hope in God, the Commonwealth", substitute "The Commonwealth".I have already given the argument for this amendment, which would take away the first four words in the proposed preamble—those words being `With hope in God'. I move this amendment because I believe those words are very restrictive. As I said earlier, we have gone from having reliance on the Almighty 100 years ago to the word `hope' and we are in a much more secular society where this does not express the spiritual beliefs of some millions of Australians, particularly young Australians, as we go into the next century.I am in no way wanting to truncate those people who do have a belief in God with a capital `G' and with the very restricted meaning that our culture has placed upon that down the line. Everybody should be free to fight for their beliefs. I will be at the forefront of fighting for everybody's right to express their spirituality in their own way. But I believe a restrictive term like this does not represent the spirituality of millions of Australians and we ought not therefore have it at the head of the preamble.18:05:007444Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I will not repeat the arguments from earlier today where it was indicated that we would not be supporting this amendment. I do not think I need to canvass those arguments again. We went through them to some extent yesterday as well.18:05:007444Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Senator Brown is revisiting God. Honourable senators will recall that in late 1997 Senator Brown attempted to do away with public prayer in the parliament; he is now attempting to remove reference to God in the Constitution. Leaders of all nations must recognise that they do not have the power to rule absolutely. Failure to acknowledge that leads to human rights violations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in fact was drafted largely by persons who had a deep commitment to God and who were influenced by natural law philosophies. We need to publicly acknowledge that parliament itself is subject to a higher law and that unjust and immoral laws are unjust and immoral irrespective of whether correct procedures are followed.Senator Brown mentions the word `secular'. To be secular is one thing, but to deliberately expunge from the Australian Constitution an expression of hope in the Creator is quite another. The acknowledgment of the divine is deeply embedded in our culture and indeed in most cultures throughout the world. To whom do our public leaders, for example, turn at times of crisis and national mourning? We saw the other day a very moving expression by the Governor-General seeking the healing of the Creator. Society loses coherence if God, upon whom is based fairness, justice and human dignity, is rejected. If democracy is the harmonious arrangement of the civil order, the better to achieve a more humane society, then best we appeal, as we are in this preamble, to our hope in the God who endowed each member of the human family with inherent dignity. I oppose this attempt to remove God from the proposed constitutional preamble.18:09:007444Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Good is not the prerogative of the godly—witness, the Taliban.18:09:007444Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—For the record, the government opposes the amendment proposed by Senator Brown. I note that the Democrats and the opposition support a version of the preamble which contains `With hope in God' and it is something which the government thinks is appropriate to include. Indeed, the prayers we have each morning in the Senate have not changed since 1903, and it is a longstanding tradition. Similarly, in this case there should still be reference to God in relation to the preamble.Amendment not agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.7444Motion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—I remind honourable senators that section 128 of the Constitution requires that the proposed law be passed by an absolute majority. Therefore, the bells will be rung for four minutes and the Senate will vote to enable the names of senators voting to be recorded.18:15:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)42Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.26Bishop, T. M. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Question resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.Bill read a third time.Question resolved in the affirmative, by an absolute majority.Bill read a third time.Miscellaneous744510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A message has been received from the House of Representatives notifying the appointment of Mr Ferguson to the Council of the National Library of Australia. Full details of the message will be recorded in the Senate Journals .Committees7445744510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A message has been received from the House of Representatives notifying the variation of membership of three joint committees. Full details of the message will be recorded in the Senate Journals .Bills7445s2077445Consideration resumed from 31 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills7445s2087445Debate resumed from 31 March, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.18:21:007445O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—This is a bill which proposes to amend the Customs Act 1901 to provide that customs duty is not payable on goods imported on a temporary basis for use in the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, certain events in the Sydney Cultural Olympics and a number of events leading up to these Olympics. No duty will be payable on these goods on the proviso that such goods are exported by the end of the year 2000. A regulation to this extent has already been made. The bill essentially gives legislative support to this regulation.The goods which will be covered by the provision are the vast amounts of infrastructure items such as desks, tents, chairs, et cetera, which will be—and in some cases already have been—brought in by SOCOG. Also covered will be motor vehicles, telecast technology and any other goods which will be imported specifically for use in relation to the Olympics and related events and which will be exported again once these events are completed. Duty will become payable if the goods are used in contravention of the regulations—for example, for a purpose other than one related to the Olympics or associated events, or if the goods are not exported before 31 December 2000 without the grant of an extension of time.In order to ensure that there is a clear audit trail for all temporarily imported goods, the bill provides Customs with the power to demand information regarding the goods on importation. Owners of the goods must also notify Customs of their intention to export the goods without entry documentation so that Customs has a complete record of the movement of the goods. The bill will reduce the administrative complexity involved with the large numbers of the goods temporarily imported into Australia for the Olympics and related events and will ensure that Customs is able to track these goods to prevent them from illegally entering the domestic market.The opposition supports the passage of this bill through the parliament, although it is a matter of concern that SOCOG has a need to import so much of the infrastructure for the conduct of the Olympics. It is a concern to the opposition that Australian companies were not able to win tenders to supply these goods. There is also a concern on the part of the opposition about the technology which will be coming in with broadcasters. It highlights the fact that Australia appears to be behind other nations in that regard. The question must be asked: why are our major television stations behind in digital technology? One wonders whether the government is looking at the initiatives in this bill to reduce administrative problems to see how they could be applied across the board. Having said that, the opposition will be supporting this bill.18:24:007446Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I thank Senator O'Brien for his contribution to the debate. This bill relates to customs preparations for the Olympics, and the bill has two functions. For goods temporarily imported for the Olympics, the bill sets 31 December 2000 as the last date for those goods to be exported, otherwise duties and taxes become liable. For goods temporarily imported for the Olympics, the bill requires submission of a formal application to Customs which contains details of the importer and the goods to assist in the audit and acquittal of the eventual export. This bill is important as it puts in place measures and dates for goods that are temporarily imported for the Olympics and the Paralympics. I have noted the comments made by Senator O'Brien with regard to the activities of SOCOG, and I trust that he has taken the opportunity to raise those same issues with the Labor government administra tion in New South Wales. I commend the bill to honourable senators.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills7446r7717446Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Senator Heffernan:That this bill be now read a second time.18:26:007446O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—This legislation has some history in that most foreign international carriers operating into Australia are not subject to the Rome Convention of 1952, which was well intentioned at the time and was designed to limit the liability on industry arising from damage to persons and property on the ground. In the time when the convention was drawn up, the industry was in its infancy, and it is arguable that it was inappropriate for the industry to be required to meet the extent of the compensation that might be necessary in some of the greater calamities that might have occurred. However, the position has now changed, and that limitation is no longer valid. It is especially inappropriate when prompt and adequate compensation is to be considered for innocent victims of air accidents.The involvement of the non-flying public who are injured as third parties on the ground is obviously not a matter of their choice. A 1952 convention should not be applied to them at this stage. As far as the opposition is concerned, what also highlights the situation as to the need for change is that the situation that applies when operators of aircraft registered in non-convention countries fly over Australian territory is quite different. While these operators are also subject to strict liability, there is no statutory limit to the compensation payable by them. As a consequence of these circumstances and Australia's adherence to the Rome Convention, damages received by victims of an accident caused by an Australian registered aircraft—such as Qantas or Ansett—on an international flight are likely to be substantially less than if an aircraft of a non-convention country—such as Japan, the UK or the United States—was involved. This variation in the levels of compensation creates uncertainty, can increase the costs on the judicial system and on the parties, and can increase the levels of litigation necessary to obtain better compensation.This bill will have the effect of making all aircraft coming within its jurisdiction subject to strict and unlimited liability, and it will bring them into line with the great majority of foreign carriers who serve the Australian market and aircraft in the majority of Australian states. As this will require the repeal of current legislation, this bill needs to be passed—that is, the current legislation giving effect to the Rome Convention needs to be set aside. Australia's participation in the convention will be formally renounced, as I understand it, at a time consistent with the new act coming into force. The opposition supports these measures and commends the bill to the Senate.18:30:007447Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator O'Brien for his comments, which accurately summarise the purposes and provisions of the bill. I also thank the other parties for their support for the bill and commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills7447r8347447Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.18:31:007447Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 is designed to facilitate the exchange of information between the Sports Commission and the Australian Customs Service about the importation of, or any attempt to import, perform ance enhancing substances. The Labor Party support this legislation as it is a continuation of the policies first introduced by Labor earlier this decade when we established ASDA—the Australian Sports Drug Agency. When ASDA was established by the Labor Party, it signalled the first time in the world that a drug agency had been created under government legislation. Its purpose was to ensure that Australian athletes were able to compete and perform in an environment unpolluted by performance enhancing substances.Performance enhancing drugs and other substances that are illegally used in competitive sport have caused a great deal of damage to both international and domestic sporting competitions. When ASDA was first created, one of the key aims of the then Labor government was for the agency to act as a deterrent to any athlete who might consider using prohibited substances. To achieve this goal, ASDA implemented a variety of strategies based on policy advice, education, advocacy and deterrence. In 1996-97, ASDA performed a record number of anti-doping tests. Its dominance in preventing the use of illegal substances in sport is such that ASDA now estimates that 99 per cent of athletes have been deterred from participating in banned doping practices since its programs began. The success of Australia's Sports Drug Agency is highlighted by the fact that it has not had a single successful legal challenge against its testing programs.We are proud that ASDA has proven itself to be worthy of the exceptional international reputation it has gained. The Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 seeks to build on this platform created by Labor. Its stated purpose is to enhance the Sports Commission's role in working with other sporting organisations to provide a competitive environment untainted by performance enhancing drugs. The main provisions in this bill are designed to establish a structure that facilitates the exchange of information about the importation of banned substances from the Australian Customs Service to the Sports Commission. This information that Customs will be supplying to the Australian Sports Commission will not be about individual athletes that have been confirmed as drug cheats, rather the information will detail situations where there exists a possibility of an offence being committed.There are, however, a few aspects of the bill that are still to have the procedural aspects finalised, and we will take the government's assurances that these measures will be properly enacted. First, there is the vexed question of what actually constitutes a performance enhancing drug. ASDA and the Therapeutic Drugs Administration are well positioned to provide these details, particularly as the nature of what is considered performance enhancing does change depending on circumstances. Nevertheless, the government should have provided concrete definitions in this legislation. Some recent incidents involving sportspeople demonstrate that some substances that may be legally used outside of competitive sport are nevertheless illegal if used by competitive athletes. To their credit, the government have already implemented the Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 , which establishes an Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee to adjudicate on situations where athletes need to take medically prescribed drugs that may also be deemed to be performance enhancing.The second issue of concern that we have with this bill is privacy. The bill outlines fairly restrictive conditions covering privacy. However, an analysis of the bill shows that there is no provision for any redress if an individual has personal information unlawfully disclosed. We have been assured that all privacy measures will be strictly observed and that the Privacy Commission has given the nod to this legislation. Although the government could have done more in this respect, we are satisfied that the appropriate privacy legislation will be sufficient to ensure protection of our athletes.Given that Australia is hosting the next Olympics and that we have an excellent international reputation for dealing with drugs in sport, Labor will support this bill without amendments. Yet we remain disappointed that the Minister for Sport and Tourism has not treated this issue with the serious policy consideration that it deserves. It was both disappointing and demoralising that the minister failed to attend the IOC World Conference on Drugs in Sport in Lausanne in February this year. The proposed drug summit that has been mooted by the minister is no substitute for attendance at this conference and for arguing Australia's position on the international stage. The IOC has a seemingly ambiguous position on the use of drugs in sport and the Australian government should have done its utmost to ensure that all practicable support was provided.In supporting this bill, the opposition is mindful of the way this government has slashed funding to the Sports Commission and has not allocated new funding to ASDA to facilitate changes to its operations. The government must ensure that additional budgetary pressures do not compromise the other essential functions of the agency. We would not like to see a situation in which ASDA's ability to continue testing national and international competitors is in any way undermined because of stretched resources.On a more positive note, we welcome the tenets of this bill which will establish a mechanism for the exchange of information between the Australian Customs Service and ASDA for the purposes of assisting with the agency's testing program and activities. The opposition is confident that the necessary complementary Customs legislation will be both adequate and competent.It should be noted that the government intends to increase the level of administrative and coordination support that the Australian Customs Service provides to ASDA in relation to the illegal importation of banned sports drugs. Given this increase in functions, we urge the government to address the issue of resourcing and to ensure that Customs officials are provided with adequate training with respect to locating and reporting the importation of performance enhancing drugs in sport.Labor will support the passage of this legislation. It will help ensure that the 2000 Olympics and competitive sport in general will be free from illegal substances.18:38:007449Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I thank Senator Lundy for her comments. The government will certainly take note of the points she has outlined, particularly those of an administrative nature that will need ongoing surveillance and scrutiny.The amendments in this bill will enhance the overall effectiveness of Australia's anti-doping regime and help to keep us at the forefront of the international fight against the use of banned drugs in sport. The bill will facilitate the exchange of necessary information between two key Australian agencies, thereby improving the whole of government effort to rid sport of drug cheats. I think the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Ms Kelly, is to be commended for achieving this whole of government arrangement that is so important and for her pioneering in this area.Work being done in concert with the provisions in the Australian Sports Drug Agency Amendment Act 1999 commenced on 1 August, allowing for Customs to pass certain sports drug related information to the Australian Sports Drug Agency. The amendments have been developed in close consultation with, and agreed to by, the Attorney-General's Department and the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that the rights to privacy continue to be protected.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Senate adjourned at 6.41 p.m.Documents74497449The following document was tabled by the Clerk:Public Service Act—Environment and Heritage Determination 1999/1.Answers to Questions on Notice7450The following answers to questions were circulated:7450(Question No. 718)7187450Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 May 1999:(1) How much was expended in the 1998-99 Budget for the Albury bypass project.(2) What was that money spent on.(3) What budget has the Federal Government approved for the project in total.(4) (a) Has the Government been involved in the debate about whether this bypass should be internal or external; and (b) does it have a view about which is the best option.(5) Given that the Victorian and New South Wales Governments have a policy of external bypasses unless residents choose otherwise, does the Federal Government have a policy preference; if so, what is it.(6) Is there anything in the agreement between the Commonwealth and the Victorian and New South Wales Governments which binds the New South Wales Government to proceed with the internal route; if so, in what way.(7) Has this project been referred under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974; if not, why not.(8) Should the Victorian and New South Wales Governments propose a change to the external route, at no extra cost to the Federal Government, would the Federal Government withdraw its support for the project.(9) Was the decision to proceed with the internal option made because it was the cheaper option.(10) Was the provision of a second river crossing a key to the decision to proceed with the internal option.(11) What other reasons were put by the New South Wales State Government for the internal as opposed to the external option.(12) (a) What agreement does the Federal Government have with the states in the event that the project cost exceeds the Federal Government's budget; and (b) who pays in the event that there is a blow out. (13) What is allowed in the project budget for: (a) noise attenuation to meet Environment Protection Authority (EPA) requirements; (b) noise treatment for Scots School and affected houses; (c) renewal every 2 to 3 years of open grade asphalt; (d) the Fallon Street bridge; (e) imported fill; (f) relocation of the Wodonga water intake; (g) the Bandiana to Melbourne freeway link; and (h) stock underpasses and service roads.(14) If these are not provided for in the budget, how will they be funded.(15) What are the noise limitations imposed on the project by the New South Wales EPA.(16) Is the Federal Government aware that the following surveys conducted in the Albury area showed opposition to the internal bypass route: (a) Albury City Council in 1995, by 59 per cent; (b) Albury City Council in December, by 61.3 per cent; and (c) The Border Mail in September 1998, by 75 per cent.(17) (a) What is the latest cost estimate for the external option; and (b) can copies be provided of all cost estimates for this option.(18) (a) Who prepared that cost estimate; (b) on what basis; (c) was the Federal Government provided with documents detailing the external route option; and (d) can copies be provided.(19) Was the Federal Government satisfied with the methodology used by the panel authority in its consideration of alternative routes.(20) Was the Federal Government aware that, in his review of the panel report, Dr Ian Harriss, economics lecturer of Charles Sturt University, said in his summary of his analysis, `It is difficult to imagine a more serious form of methodological bias. . . My overall conclusion is that the panel has produced a document that is so seriously flawed that it is either the outcome of negligence or is designed to produce a particular outcome'.(21) Was the Federal Government aware that, in his review of the panel report, Mr Brian Furze, Head of Humanities and Social Sciences, Latrobe University, Wodonga said, `My main concerns with the panel report are related to the flawed nature of the consultative process and the simplistic ways in which social and community based issues have been ignored or marginalised. My concern has overwhelmingly been framed by issues this raises in relation to democratic processes, and the ways in which economic and technical approaches to project development can and do undermine consultative and participatory actions. Consultative and participatory approaches are essential to democratic decision making. Without them, oppositional concerns are marginalised and therefore largely ignored'.(22) Given these criticisms, is the Federal Government confident that the process has recommended the best route.(23) Did the Federal Government make any representations to the New South Wales State Government on this question; if so, can copies be provided of the relevant documents.(24) Have the social cost/benefits of both options been calculated; if not, why not; if so, what are they.(25) Have the economic costs/benefits of both options been calculated, in particular the cost related to the extra length of 5 kilometres for the internal route; if not, why not; if so, can copies of the costings be provided.(26) Are there any restrictions applied to the proposed bypass for the carriage of dangerous goods such as ammonia, chlorine and benzene.(27) What are the restrictions which apply to the transport of such goods in metropolitan areas.(28) What is the average number of truck trips currently transporting dangerous and toxic goods through Albury.(29) (a) Was information made available to the Federal Government about the type and quantity of dangerous and toxic goods currently being transported through Albury; (b) how current is it; and (c) can a copy of this information be provided.(30) Does the Federal Government have a view as to the relative risk from accidents and spillages for the internal and external route options.(31) (a) Has the advice from the New South Wales EPA in relation to this risk been made available to the Federal Government; and (b) can a copy of this advice be provided.(32) Have any contingency costs been calculated for possible class actions as a result of a toxic goods accident; if so, what are the details.(33) Is it the case that parts of the freeway will not be called a freeway.(34) What are the implications of such a measure for federal funding.(35) (a) Is it the Federal Government's responsibility to compensate landowners in the event that there are no stock underpasses provided where land is intersected by the freeway; if so, what is the cost of such compensation; if not, whose responsibility is it for such compensation; and (b) is it acceptable to the Federal Government that stock be permitted to cross the freeway at any point.(36) Has the Federal Government been advised of any legal action in this respect to date.(37) (a) Is it proposed that a speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour will be imposed on any section of the freeway; and (b) what is the reason for such a limit.(38) Is it proposed to fund the Bandiana Link; if so: (a) why; and (b) what is the estimated cost.7451Macdonald, 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) Expenditure in 1998/99 is expected to total $11 million.(2) Expenditure is for pre-construction activities including survey, project design, land acquisition and community consultation.(3) No final figure for the project has yet been approved and cost estimates are still being finalised. Approvals for the project to date are $17.2 million in New South Wales and $4 million in Victoria, for preconstruction.(4) (a) and (b) The Commonwealth has considered the issues and accepted the recommendations of the New South Wales and Victorian Governments on this matter.(5) The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) and VicRoads advise that they do not have such a policy and that it is only one planning option for upgrading highways. The Commonwealth's approach is that the particular circumstances of each case should determine the outcome.(6) There is no agreement as such for this project. The project is governed by the approvals given from time to time by the Commonwealth, which authorise the States to carry out activities for which the Commonwealth will reimburse costs up to the limit of the approval. Expenditure by the States on anything other than the internal route would require prior agreement by the Commonwealth.(7) Yes. On 1 October 1992 the then Minister for Land Transport designated the RTA and VicRoads as the proponents for a National Highway upgrade at Albury Wodonga under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974.(8) The Commonwealth would consider the merits of any proposals from the NSW and Victorian Governments.(9) The decision took into account all of the issues that were raised during the planning process.(10) See answer to part (9). (11) The merits of the internal route upgrade are set out in the Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Effects Statement (EIS/EES) and independent panel report.(12) (a) and (b) No formal proposal to commence construction has been put before the Commonwealth. Accordingly, there is no commitment by any government and no final estimate for the Albury upgrade has yet been received.(13) (a) to (h) Specific costings for these items are currently being developed by the States. A detailed estimate of cost for the project will be prepared by the States when design features of the project are further advanced.(14) See answer to part (13).(15) These are contained in conditions 27 to 36 of Schedule 1 of the instrument of approval signed on 23 January 1998 by the Acting NSW Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. A copy of Schedule 1 has been provided to the Table Office.(16) (a) to (c) The Commonwealth is aware that during the course of planning for the upgrade at Albury several surveys of public opinion were undertaken, and of reports of the results of those surveys.(17) (a) and (b) Until recently the most recent detailed cost estimate for the external route was the concept estimate of $263 million in the EIS/EES. However, a revised cost estimate has been sought by the Commonwealth from an independent consultant. The consultant's report will be made available after it has been finalised.(18) (a) to (d) The concept estimates in the EIS/EES were prepared by consultant Gutteridge Haskins and Davey on the basis of information available at the time. Copies of the EIS/EES report are available from the RTA.(19) Questions about the methodology of the panel report are matters for the Victorian government, under whose legislation the panel operated. The Victorian government has not indicated to the Commonwealth any concerns about the panel's findings.(20) Yes(21) Yes(22) Criticism of the panel's methodology is in the first instance a matter for the Victorian and NSW governments to consider, having regard to their planning processes. No concerns have been raised with the Commonwealth by the states as a result of these criticisms.(23) No.(24) Yes. These issues are assessed in the EIS/EES.(25) Yes. These are available in the EIS/EES. However it should be understood that the inner route requires construction of approximately 40km of new road, and the outer approximately 46km. Measured from common points at each end, the inner route is approximately 52km long compared to the outer's 46km, the difference being the inner route uses approximately 12km of already constructed freeway south of the Lincoln Causeway.(26) This is a matter for the New South Wales and Victorian governments. The carriage of dangerous goods in New South Wales is governed by legislation such as the Dangerous Goods Act 1975, the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1977 and Regulation 119A of the Motor Traffic Regulations 1935, Schedule M. The carriage of dangerous goods in Victoria is covered by the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 and the Road Transport (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995. The Commonwealth is not aware of any specific restrictions proposed for the Albury upgrade project.(27) See answer to part (26).(28) This information would need to be sought from the New South Wales and Victorian governments.(29) (a) Yes. The information is contained in the EIS/EES. (b) The information was based on traffic surveys carried out in 1994. (c) The EIS/EES is available from the RTA.(30) Environment Australia's (EA) assessment under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 took into account the findings of the EIS/EES, the panel report and the environmental assessment report by the New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. EA found that both routes reduce the risk of accidents and spillage because of the improved road conditions. However, the inner route offers a greater risk reduction than the outer route.(31) (a) The Minister for the Environment, in his recommendations to the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, endorsed the New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning's recommended conditions of approval that addressed the hazards and risks associated with the proposal. (b) Not applicable.(32) No.(33) The length of the project in New South Wales will not be declared a freeway, but will be known as the Hume Highway, although the urban section will be built to freeway standard with access limited to grade separated interchanges. The project in Victoria will be known as the Hume Freeway (an extension of the existing freeway), reflecting the differing road definitions between the two States.(34) None.(35) (a) No. Compensation is a state responsibility under the relevant state legislation. The Commonwealth refunds such compensation as part of project costs. (b) No.(36) The Commonwealth is not aware of any such action.(37) (a) The New South Wales RTA is considering a speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour in Albury between the Borella Road and Bridge Street interchanges. (b) The proposed limit is intended to support safe operation of the Highway, consistent with the necessary environmental safeguards, along a section which will include two major interchanges within 1.8km.(38) (a) No. Although the Bandiana link has been included in development of the concept, the link is not part of the National Highway. Responsibility for funding, if it is to be built, rests with the Victorian government. (b) The cost is a matter for the Victorian government.7453(Question No. 1148)11487453Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 July 1999:Can a list be provided of all bilateral agreements, conservation agreements and management plans in preparation, including the scope of each, the states and territories with which they are being negotiated and the expected date of completion.7453Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:I assume the Senator is referring to the arrangements to be put in place under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.At this stage, no bilateral agreements, conservation agreements or management plans are being prepared under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.The Commonwealth has conducted some preliminary discussions with States and Territories, at the officials level, on the possible form and content of bilateral agreements dealing with accreditation of State and Territory assessment processes. It is my intention to make substantial progress on developing bilateral agreements in the 12 months leading up to the commencement of the Act in July 2000.Bilateral agreements will be developed in a transparent manner; relevant stakeholders will be kept informed of progress, and their views will be sought at appropriate stages. 7453(Question No. 1153)11537453Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:With reference to the future of the Tarkine Savage River corridor forests and the area covered by clauses 54 and 55 of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement:(1) Has the state yet commenced the review of the supply of deep red myrtle referred to in clause 55(a); if so, who is carrying out that review.(2)What are its terms of reference.(3) When is that review scheduled for: (a) completion; (b) auditing; and (c) publication.If the review has not started, when will it begin.7453Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:1) Yes. Forestry Tasmania is carrying out the review.(2) The review is being carried out to meet the objectives set out in clause 5 of the Tasmanian RFA.(3) The review must be completed by November 2001 in line with the milestones agreed in the RFA. In accordance with Clause 55, when completed the review will be audited and released publicly.(4) See responses to questions 1-3.7453(Question No. 1170)11707453O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:When does the Minister intend to implement the Government's policy to end cabotage arrangements for shipping services on the Australian coast.7453Macdonald, 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 Government is considering the report of the Shipping Reform Working Group that I established in December last year to examine the issues associated with the winding back of cabotage. I expect that the Government will make a decision on this matter later this year. 7454(Question No. 1171)11717454O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:(1) How many single voyage permits and multiple voyage permits were issued to foreign vessels to enable them to operate on the Australian Coast in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(2) In each instance, under what flag did the vessel under the permit sail.(3) What was the nationality of the crew on each vessel issued with a single voyage permit or a multiple voyage permit in the above financial years.7454Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The following table provides information on the number of Single Voyage Permits (SVP's) and Continuing Voyage Permits (CVP's) issued between 1995-96 and 1998-99.YEARSVP'SCVP'S1995/9642101996/9757201997/9878801998/9970441(2) The following table provides a breakdown of the number of permits issued by flag of the vessels between 1995-96 and 1998-99.SVP's1995/961996/971997/981998/99Singapore70Singapore71Panama127Panama176Malaysia67Malaysia71Liberia85Liberian77Panama58Panama67Malaysia84Singapore55Greek36Liberia60Singapore79Norway54Danish35Danish45Greek69Greek40Liberia33Greek29Germany53Malaysian39Philippines16Hong Kong27Norway48Danish31Indonesia17Malta26Danish46Netherlands30Antigua15Norway21Netherlands42Cyprus28Bahaman12Philippines20Philippines30Bahaman26Malta11Bahamas20Bahaman19Tongan24Hong Kong10Cyprus18Cyprus16German22UK9UK16Irish12Hong Kong17Norway6Indonesian14UK12Russian13Japan4German12Antiguan10Philippines13Vanuatu3Isle of Man7Hong Kong10UK10Russian3Netherlands7Malta10Italian10French2Antiguan5Russian6French5Cyprus2St Vincent4NZ5Malta5Croatian2British3Croatian4Taiwan4NZ2Croatian3British4NZ4Dutch1Irish3Luxemburg3Swedish3German1ROC3Japan3Japanese3PNG1Fijian2Taiwan2Bermuda2Irish1Japanese2Thailand2British2Isle of Man1Korean2Cayman Is1Luxemburg2Tongan1NZ2Fiji1Qatar2USA1Taiwan2France1Rotterdam2Polish1United Arab2Isle of Man1Vanuatu2Vanuatu2Kollmar1Dutch1Czech Rep1Marshall Is1St Vincent1Dutch1United Arab1Turkish1French1Marshall Is1Turkish1Ukraine1CVP's1995/961996/971997/981998/99Russian 1 0Malaysia1 0Hong Kong 9Panama5NZ 2Italian 2German 2Singapore 1(3) Shippers applying for SVP's and CVP's are not required to provide details on crew nationality. Accordingly, the Department of Transport and Regional Services does not possess information on crew nationality for vessels issued with either a SVP or CVP.7455(Question No. 1172)11727455O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:(1) In the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years, how many foreign flagged vessels issued with single voyage permits or multiple voyage permits to operate on the Australian coast were the subject of an inspection by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).(2) (a) What was the reason for AMSA undertaking each inspection; (b) what was the nature of each inspection; and (c) what was the result of each inspection.7455Macdonald, 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) and (2) Single voyage permits (SVPs) and continuing voyage permits (CVPs) may be issued to unlicensed vessels to engage in a trade between ports where:(a) no licensed ship is available for the service; or(b) that the service as carried out by the licensed ships is inadequate;A SVP application for an oil, chemical or LPG tanker must be accompanied by an independent inspection report based on the Oil Companies Interna tional Marine Forum (OCIMF) inspection standards, together with a letter from the charterer stating that the ship is in a satisfactory condition to undertake the intended shipment.An application for dry bulk carriers requires a bulk ship inspection report to accompany the application. In addition a declaration by the charterer is required that on the basis of information provided the vessel is believed to be suitable for the intended voyage. Both oil and bulk vessels are now required to submit International Safety Management Certificates and documents of compliance issued by their Flag State.As part of the permit approval process, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) is required to assess the documentation accompanying each application.AMSA may not necessarily carry out an inspection on a vessel merely because it has been issued with a permit. The procedure is that if a vessel is due for inspection in accordance with AMSA's port state control (PSC) targeting strategy, then every effort is made to carry out an inspection. If the vessel is not due for inspection and no adverse reports have been received then it is unlikely that an inspection is carried out.To obtain the specific information sought in Senate Question No. 1172, AMSA would need to obtain the names of all vessels issued with SVPs and CVPs for the period 1 July 1995 and 30 June 1999. It would require AMSA to manually check approximately 2,500 records to determine which foreign flagged vessels issued with an SVP or CVP were subject to an inspection by AMSA. This task would be extremely time consuming and I do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of AMSA's resources, particularly bearing in mind that AMSA is funded by industry through the collection of levies. 7456(Question No. 1173)11737456O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:(1) In the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years: (a) how much coastal cargo, based on aggregate deadweight tonnage, was carried by foreign vessels operating on the Austral ian coast under permit; and (b) how much cargo was carried by Australian flagged vessels.(2) What share of cargo, based on aggregate deadweight tonnage, shipped into and out of Australian ports was carried by Australian flagged vessels in the above financial years.7456Macdonald, 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 (a) and (b).YearCoastal cargo carried by foreign vessels under permit (million deadweight tonnes)Coastal cargo carried by Australian flagged vessels (million deadweight tonnes)1995-963.244.61996-973.945.21997-985.147.41998-997.3na2.YearImports: Share of cargo shipped into Australian ports that was carried by Australian flagged vessels (% of deadweight tonnes)Exports: Share of cargo shipped out of Australian ports that was carried by Australian flagged vessels (% of deadweight tonnes)1995-969.982.421996-975.772.091997-983.681.9619983.291.911998-99nana7456(Question No. 1174)11747456O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:(1) What was the level of investment in the Australian shipping fleet in the financial years 1980-81 through to 1998-99.(2) What was the average age of the Australian fleet, by year, over the above period.(3) What was the average age of the international shipping fleet, by year, over the above period.7456Macdonald, 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)YearNet Investment in the Australian shipping fleet ($m)1980-81na1981-82na1982-83na1983-84na1984-85na 1985-86na1986-87na1987-88na1988-8955.421989-90349.481990-91325.971991-92(23.30)1992-93401.041993-9454.121994-95481.301995-96(41.93)1996-9711.121997-9828.711998-99na(xxx.xx) = disinvestmentSources: Australian Maritime Transport 1998, Australian Shipowners Association 1999Shipping Industry Reform Authority 19922.YearAverage age of the Australian fleet (years)1979-8081980-81na1981-82na1982-83101983-84101984-8581985-8681986-8781987-8891988-8991989-9091990-9181991-9291992-9391993-94101994-95111995-96121996-97121997-98121998-99133.YearAverage age of the international shipping fleet(years)1980-811411981-821411982-831411983-84151 1984-85na1985-861511986-871221987-881221988-891611989-901511990-91na1991-921711992-931711993-94na1994-951811995-961811996-971811997-981831998-99183World Fleet Statistics, Lloyd's RegisterProgress on Shipping Reform, Shipping Industry Reform Authority June 1991Shipping Statistics and Market Review, Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics, 19997458(Question No. 1175)11757458O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:(1) Has the Minister sought any advice, or has he been provided with any advice, as to the relative operating costs of Australian flagged vessels and foreign flagged vessels operating on the Australian coast; if so, under current policy arrangements, is there a significant cost disadvantage faced by Australian flagged vessels compared with foreign flagged vessels; if so, what are the components of the operating costs of Australian flagged vessels that place them at a disadvantage compared to foreign flagged vessels.(2) What is the magnitude of this cost disadvantage by cost component.(3) If the Minister has not sought this advice, or has not been provided with this advice, does the Minister plan to seek advice as part of the current review of shipping policy.7458Macdonald, 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.Australian flagged vessels have a significant cost disadvantage compared with foreign flagged vessels. The cost disadvantage is due primarily to the costs of employing Australian seafarers compared to the costs of employing foreign seafarers.(2) The magnitude of this cost disadvantage varies with ship size and type, but for a typical large trading vessel it is about $3.5 million per year, and in recent years has been increasing.For vessels of this type the gap is comprised of about $1 million per year for capital costs, $2 million per year for manning costs, and about $0.5 million per year for other operating costs (such as stores, docking, repairs and maintenance).(3) Not applicable.7458(Question No. 1176)11767458O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 July 1999:(1) What contribution did the Australian shipping fleet make to Australia's gross domestic product in the financial years 1980-81 through to 1998-99.(2) Over the above period what have been the key factors that have caused a variation in the contribution made by Australian shipping to the economy.(3) What contribution has Australian shipping made of Australia's balance of payments in the financial years 1980-81 through to 1998-99. (4) Over the above period what have been the key factors that have caused a variation in the contribution made by Australian shipping to Australia's trade performance.7459Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)YearContribution to gross domestic product—Water transport ($m)Contribution to gross domestic product—Water transport Australian production/value added to GDP ($m)Contribution to gross domestic product—Australian trading fleet gross output/GDP at market prices ($m)1980-812,400*/1981-822,784*/1982-832,809*/1983-84/43711984-851,5594/42421,2392/1985-861,57441986-871,56541,881*/42411,2801/1987-881,63441988-892,3284r9443/1989-902,5004r1979*/68051,2263/1990-912,5444r/68751,1943/1991-922,5764r/72151992-932,5284r3,442*/65251993-942,7164/73651994-952,8384/78351995-962,7944/84651996-972,9834/89551997-983,0374/87751,3406/48061998-99nanana* ABS 5209.0—Water transport—Australian production1. Australian Shipping, Australian National Maritime Association BTCE Information paper 29, 1988 Future Shipping Reform, SIRA 1992 ABS 5206—Water Transport—GDP(P)at average 1989-90 prices (r = original estimate later revised by ABS) ABS 5206.0—Water Transport—Industry Gross Value Added Access Economics, Economic Contribution Of The Australian Shipping Industry, 1999—major trading fleet turnover/GDP at market prices.(2) Over the above period the key factors that have caused a variation in the contribution made by Australian shipping to the economy have been the level of freight rates and the amount of cargo carried by Australian shipping.The former is dependent on the balance of forces of supply and demand in international and domestic sea transport markets. The latter is dependent on both the level of demand for shipping services, and on the willingness of Australians to invest in the provision of sea cargo transport services rather than investing in some other sector of the Australian economy.(3)YearServices Credits—Shipmenta ($m)Services Credits—Freightb ($m)Contribution to balance of payments ($m)1980-8143311981-8237811982-8339739611983-843621984-853951985-863811986-8746244021987-885371988-895541989-905351990-915711991-921,1121992-931,2411993-941,1011,0891994-951,1391,1271995-961,2331,2211996-979511997-981,0421,288/47931998-99ABS 5354,5302ABS 5363.0Report of the Joint Shipping Task Force, 1984 (invisible credits for sea freight) BTCE Occasional Paper 99, 1990 (net contribution) Access Economics, Economic Contribution Of The Australian Shipping Industry, 1999 (gross freight earnings/net BoP impact)(4) Apart from the factors noted in my answer to the second part of this question, variations in exchange rates would have been a major factor in variations in the contribution made by Australian shipping to our trade performance, measured in terms its impact on Australia's balance of payments, in the financial years 1980-81 through to 1998-99.7460(Question No. 1186)11867460O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) (a) What is the function of the Marine Incident Investigation Unit; (b) how many staff are employed in the unit; and (c) what is the experience and qualifications of these staff.(2) Was the Marine Incident Investigation Unit asked to investigate the circumstances surrounding the loss of the Red Baron and the death of Mr Nicky Whelan in December 1995; if not, why not. (3) Who determined that the incident be investigated by Mr Brian Willey.(4) When was the decision made to have Mr Willey undertake an investigation into the loss of the Red Baron.(5) What experience and expertise did Mr Willey have that qualified him to undertake the investigation.(6) Has the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), or any department or agency acting on behalf of AMSA, or the Attorney General's Department engaged any consultants, including private investigators, as part of any inquiry or legal action associated with the loss of the Red Baron.7460Macdonald, 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) (a) The function of the Marine Incident Investigation Unit is to investigate the circumstances and causes of marine incidents falling within Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Unit operates within the provision of the Navigation (Marine Casualty) Regulations, made pursuant to the Navigation Act 1912, sub-section 425 (1)(ea) and sub-section 425 (1AAA).(b) Six staff.(c) The staff consist of:two master mariners, both with command experience, one holding an Extra Master Mariners Certificate (degree equivalent);two marine engineers class 1 holding degrees in mechanical engineering, with experience as chief engineer;an ASO 4 publications officer;an ASO 2 general administrative support officer.(2) The unit was not asked to investigate the Red Baron incident or the death of Mr Nicky Whelan. Fishing vessel operation and safety come under State or Territory jurisdiction and only fall within the provisions of the Navigation Act, 1912, when on an overseas voyage. The Unit normally investigates incidents involving fishing vessels only when some other vessel, which comes under the provisions of the Navigation Act 1912, is also involved in the incident, such as in the case of collision.(3) Mr Willey did not investigate the Red Baron incident. The General Manager of the then Maritime Safety and Environment Services group of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) requested Mr Willey to undertake an internal analysis of AMSA's search and rescue response to the incident.(4) As near as can be determined, Mr Willey was requested at the beginning of March 1996 to undertake the internal analysis.(5) See (3) above. With regard to the internal analysis, Mr Willey was a qualified and experienced search and rescue officer in the then Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC). At that time, Mr Willey had spent a total of ten years in search and rescue, nine of them within the MRCC and one year in the search and rescue policy section.(6) To AMSA's knowledge, no. AMSA requested Coopers and Lybrand, AMSA's internal auditors at the time, to prepare a report on the allegations that the minutes of a meeting between Airservices Australia and AMSA in relation to the Red Baron incident had been altered. While not regarded as consultants, AMSA has engaged counsel and solicitors to provide legal advice associated with the loss of the Red Baron.