1999-08-233914SENATE746301999-08-23The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills7463r6467463Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Senator Minchin:That this bill be now read a second time.upon which Senator Brown moved by way of amendment:Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the first sitting day after the first day on which all regional forest agreements have been completed between the Commonwealth and Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia".12:31:007463Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I will continue my remarks from last week on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . One lot of evidence pointed to the Western Australian EPA Bulletin No. 912 which had produced a landmark report stating that there was a significant conflict of interest in the Department of Conservation and Land Management, or CALM, and `as long as that is the case, the public will have no confidence in the department or forest management in the RFA'. In fact, the conflict of interest is such that CALM is applying its forest management practices in such a way that it is breaching ministerial conditions that are set under the environment protection legislation of that state. Mr Peter Robertson of the WA Forest Alliance pointed out to the Senate that recent courts in Western Australia had declared that CALM breached its own laws.In Tasmania there is a serious competition problem, as the state owned logging agency is also the provider of so-called independent advice to the ministers making decisions in that area. There is no way that advice could be regarded as consistent with ecological sustainability and there is no way that the public could ever regard that advice as independent. In other states, royalties provide short-term boosts—albeit very cheaply priced ones—to state coffers, and there is a reluctance to unfavourably match those tangible amounts with less tangible ones, such as the value of clean water from a forested catchment. It is difficult to see why there is such secrecy around negotiated amounts of royalties and why there are claims that it has to be commercial-in-confidence. The forests are on public land, they are a common resource and there is a powerful argument that such secrecy encourages deal making behind closed doors to the detriment of the environment and the economy.In my home state of Victoria this question of whether or not the economy wins from logging native forests has been examined by the Otway Ranges Environment Network. A total of 1,665 hectares of forest in the Otways is currently planned to be logged to the year 2000 in 113 individual coupes, 73 per cent of which are to be clear-felled or subject to group selection. Logging areas and production volumes have risen dramatically and, as you would expect, forest quality is declining. From the early 1980s the industry started to log regrowth forests. Back in 1919 and 1939 they were logged very extensively.Now, to be economic, there needs to be a minimum sawlog yield of 100 cubic metres per hectare for mountain forests and 30 cubic metres per hectare for foothill forests. In the 1998-99 season, only 32 per cent of mountain forest coupes will meet that minimum requirement and only 60 per cent of foothill coupes will yield 30 cubic metres. The classification of logs from D grade sawlog to residual has enabled the industry to stay technically below the legislated sustainable yield limit but, in reality, the industry is logging well above sustainable levels.Something we have always known is that logging is pulpwood driven. In 1990-91, 70 per cent of timber logged ended up as pulp. That percentage rose in 1997-98 to 87 per cent. This is not just some estimate; it comes from the Victorian state government's own documentation on royalty volumes. But the government still claims that no forests in the Otways are specifically logged for woodchipping and woodchipping is only a by- product of sawlog harvesting. Obviously, this is plain nonsense.Let us look at the economic significance of logging and sawmilling in the region. Hardwood logging and sawmilling employs just 211 people in the region—only 1.7 per cent of the work force—and employment in this sector is steadily declining, as it has been for many years. The industry generates revenue in the region of just $20 million a year, almost half of which comes from pulpwood sales. Royalties of a mere $1.3 million were collected for the public purse from logging in the Otway native forests in 1997-98—$480,000 from sawlogs and more than $800,000 from pulpwood. It is not easy to get exact figures but, on reliable data, OREN estimates that it costs the Victorian state government $2.3 million a year—and, according to independent studies, this figure is conservative. This means that the Victorian taxpayer is subsidising the logging industry in the Otways by at least $1 million every year.I believe, too, that there is a conflict of interest in the major political parties deciding on this bill at state and federal level. Back in 1997-98 the ALP received $197,500, the National Party $49,000 and the Liberal Party $279,000 from the forest industry. A number of senators here have investments in the woodchip industry, and I hope that they declare their potential conflicts of interest before each and every vote on this bill so that their decisions may be viewed in that context.In conclusion, the RFA negotiations have been conducted by state departments with significant conflicts of interest and will be voted on by some senators who, it could be argued, have potential conflicts of interest too. It is difficult to see how a fair and objective process could take place in such a climate, and it is reasonable to assume that the RFAs can have little public confidence as a result.It has unfortunately become clear that the government has focused on propping up a declining industry while inhibiting a growing plantation industry. The legislation will fail to prevent job losses in the favoured sector, inhibit jobs growth in other sectors, destroy areas of ecological importance, discriminate unfairly against other industries and values, limit a developing industry sector, provide complex legal uncertainty, entrench RFA agreements that are flawed, expose the Commonwealth to potentially unlimited and, in some cases, unjustified compensation, fail miserably in its stated goal of implementing the NFPS, fail miserably in resolving community, political and industry conflict over Australia's native forests, fail miserably in embracing the aspirations of indigenous people from areas under an RFA and misdirect government subsidies to prop up a flawed process.For all of these reasons the Democrats believe the RFA legislation is not ready for parliament at this stage. The legislation should be set aside until a genuine RFA process has been negotiated and until legal inconsistencies are evaluated and resolved.The Democrats cannot support this legislation at this time with so much uncertainty attached to it; with its destructive job effects; its destructive effects on valuable native forest areas; its destructive effect on water catchments—particularly, as I have mentioned, in the Otway area where many of the Geelong people and others in the area depend on that water for their resources; its drain on the public purse; the potential for open-ended compensation claims; and the unusual protection of decision making from review or scrutiny for extraordinary periods.The Australian Democrats are totally opposed to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill. We urge all senators to think about the reality of the implications of this bill and the cost to present and future generations.12:39:007464Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I rise in this debate today on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 to focus on my home state, Queensland. In particular I want to look at the process that has evolved in the South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement. Of course, there is no firm RFA for the south-east Queensland region at this stage. What I want to do is outline the process that has been pursued and the possible impacts of an RFA in the south-east Queensland region, and of course the important concerns that need to be taken into consideration in the development and conclu sion of any RFA. The Queensland and Commonwealth governments are scheduled to finalise the South-East Queensland RFA this year.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Do you support the bill?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—The objectives of the SEQRFA, the South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement, were the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative environmental reserve system; long-term ecologically sustainable management of forests; and the development of competitive and efficient forest industries. To that end the Queensland government established a forest and timber industry task force within the Department of State Development to advise the government on the approach to the SEQRFA. The task force comprised a number of stakeholders including the Queensland Timber Board, the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, other non-government members of the regional forest agreement reference panel—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Do you support the bill?7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Commonwealth government, local government and—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Come on!7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—You can have a go later, Senator McGauran. And the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, DNR; the Department of Primary Industries, DPI; and the Environmental Protection Agency. So it canvassed views widely. The task force, in considering the range of issues, considered the following: the expansion of plantations of both softwoods and native hardwoods; the encouragement of farm forestry, timber industry development and investment strategies, including expansion of downstream processing and associated employment; potential for new economic development initiatives in rural areas, including ecotourism initiatives and new industries based on native plants; the potential for a world-class conservation reserve system in accordance with agreed parameters, and review of the legislative and regulatory arrangements to achieve more integrated, coordinated and effective land use decision making.The Queensland government went to a fair degree of trouble in its consultative process in the south-east Queensland area in the development of the RFA. As a result, in March and April this year, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments jointly released two documents for public access. Those documents were: The South-East Queensland Comprehensive Regional Assessment Report and The South-East Queensland Social Assessment Report. These reports summarise the cooperative work undertaken by the two governments to provide an assessment of the forests and forest based industries of south-east Queensland.In May 1999, the Commonwealth and Queensland governments published a document entitled Towards a South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement—A Directions Report. The report was jointly prepared to facilitate government, stakeholder and community involvement in the final development of the SEQRFA. The report has been widely circulated, such that there can be final negotiation on an RFA for the south-east Queensland area, but there has been no finalisation of that RFA at this stage. It is for that reason that, when I heard my colleague Senator Woodley from the Democrats speaking in this particular debate, I thought it wise to intervene because it seemed to me that there are a number of issues at stake, and of course the issue that he mentioned in particular, the issue that I am interested in, is the issue of employment, and I will come to that in a few moments.Arising out of Towards a South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement—A Directions Report were, in effect, a range of six or seven options, if my recollection is correct. Whilst a number of options emerged, a particular option has not gained favour to this point in time. However, it is worthwhile to look at the implications of what the regional forest agreement will mean for south-east Queensland.Whilst it is too wide an issue to canvass every region within south-east Queensland, it is worthwhile looking at the Eidsvold-Monto region and the impact that the options may have upon that region. I refer in particular to a document which gives an analysis of the area under the heading `The value of native forest industries to the communities in south-east Queensland—May 1999'. The document was prepared by the Forest Protection Society. Whilst I cannot say that the figures are 100 per cent accurate I know that, according to the report, they were accurate as of about 1996.The document refers to the Eidsvold-Monto region having eight timber mills. It lists those timber mills and details the impact on employees, industry and industry expenditure. There are 214 employees and 642 family dependants covered by those eight mills in the various places of residence within the Eidsvold-Monto region. In Bundaberg there are 42 employees and 126 family dependants; in Maryborough, 40 employees and 120 family dependants; in Eidsvold, 32 employees and 96 family dependants; in Wondai, 21 employees and 63 family dependants; in Tiaro, 20 employees and 60 family dependants; in Monto, 18 employees and 54 family dependants; and so on. When the RFA is finalised for the south-east Queensland region it needs to have a balance between conservation and the livelihood of the people in those regions. I think that is what my colleague Senator Woodley—I hope I do not misrepresent what he said—was alluding to in his speech on this bill. I believe the disagreement that will come will be how that is necessarily achieved. Nonetheless, the importance is there.In many of these towns the timber operation is a significant one: it is very much the heart of the community. When one looks at the potential impacts on places such as Eidsvold, Wondai and Monto, where unemployment rates are naturally high because there is not a large number of industries, obtaining a balance between the interests of the people and the interests of conservation is important. The difficulties that exist in some of these country centres were taken into consideration when an alternative proposition was put forward by the Queensland Timber Board, the Australian Workers Union and the Forest Protection Society. It was hoped to achieve the best of all worlds by having a regional forest agreement in south-east Queensland which addressed both the conservation issues and, at the same time, the lifestyle and livelihood of the people in the communities such as those that I have mentioned.I turn to the proposal that was put forward in the regional forest development plan under the aegis of the Queensland Timber Board, the Australian Workers Union and the Forest Protection Society. The paper outlined a regional forest development plan, a potential regional forest agreement outcome for south-east Queensland. It was stated that the option had been prepared jointly by groups representing industry, workers and forest based communities. The document went on to list three crucial elements in the future management of the forests in south-east Queensland: firstly, improved native forest management; secondly, a transition towards hardwood plantations; and, thirdly, an expansion of the reserve system to ensure that it is comprehensive, adequate and representative. The document went on to say:It is the simultaneous implementation of these three initiatives which provides a balanced path forward for the management of Queensland native forests.Whilst we do not have an RFA in south-east Queensland at this time, what we have are a number of options which are still under public scrutiny and subject to finalisation and, of course, we have an alternative—if I can call it that—put forward by the Queensland Timber Board, the Australian Workers Union and the Forest Protection Society. These groups talked about delivering key objectives. They said that, under their plan, the key objectives related to economic, social and environmental concerns. They stated:The reserve system is expanded by approximately 200 000 hectares, substantially achieving the targets set down by Government and fulfilling the JANIS criteria in areas such as biodiversity, old growth and wilderness using appropriate flexibility and socio-economic considerations.In the major elements part of the plan a number of areas were covered, such as improved native forest management and the transition towards hardwood plantations. They said that their plan:. . . includes a program to establish a hardwood plantation resource. As this resource matures the hardwood industry will undergo a transition to a greater reliance on plantation wood supply.The last element of the plan is the expanded reserve system. The document stated:This represents an increase of approximately 50% in the size of the forest reserve system in the region and would mean that more than half of the publicly owned native forest would be in formal reserves.The regional forest development plan of the Queensland Timber Board, the Australian Workers Union and the Forest Protection Society looked at delivering key objectives. It addressed a number of issues, such as the JANIS criteria, ecologically sustainable forest management, wood supply, industry development and, of course, community vision. In particular, I want to look at industry development. The report said:Many . . . mills have indicated a preparedness to invest upwards of a million dollars each to improve their value-added capability and undertake more efficient log conversion. Larger mills have indicated capital expenditure considerations in excess of $10 million for the latest technology equipment for recovering high value products from hardwood logs. Employment levels would be at least maintained and for many of these investments there would be an increase in employment.So while there is no RFA for the south-east Queensland region at this stage, the proposal being put forward in the regional forest development plan by the Queensland Timber Board, the Australian Workers Union and the Forest Protection Society is looking to try to balance economically sustainable forest management, the JANIS criteria, wood supply and also industry development. In that respect, the report has to be commended.The thing I want to focus on mostly is the very last point they make in the paragraph about delivery key objectives, that is, community vision. This touches on the issue raised by my colleague Senator Woodley. The report states:Forest-based industries are among the principal sources of employment in many rural areas, playing an important role in sustaining local communities and businesses. Some small rural communities rely entirely on various forest uses for their livelihood.The future vision for all the towns that participated in the government's community workshops was for a continuation of a sustainable and renewable timber industry.That is important because here we have a recognition that without the resource you will not have a sustainable and renewable timber industry. The development plan that has been adopted by the Queensland Timber Board, the Australian Workers Union and the Forest Protection Society, while it is another alternative floating around in the ether of the development of an RFA for south-east Queensland, has been approached in a responsible manner. Under the heading `Community Vision', they went on to say:A strong common theme is the need to create work opportunities and maintain jobs in order to maintain a stable community for the future. The Regional Forest Development Plan provides a sound basis for the fulfilment of the community's vision.When one considers the types of communities that we are talking about in south-east Queensland, I think the approach which has been adopted in that particular plan goes a long way to addressing two key issues: employment and conservation. Indeed, without those the industry will not survive.12:57:007467O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I want to deal with some matters pertaining to regional forest agreements which have been entered into in anticipation of the passage of Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 in order to highlight the strong grounds which underlie the opposition's position to support this legislation with amendments. I remind the Senate that we do not take the position of the minor parties which are reported as being adamant that the legislation ought to be defeated. For that reason, our position is in contrast with the position of the minor parties. That should not be a surprise because that is the position that the Senate legislation committee minority report, to which I am a signatory, committed the Labor Party.I want to touch on some comments which were made over the last three or four days at the Liberal Party conference in Hobart—with Mr Howard attending—and some comments which have been made about this particular piece of legislation. In the Hobart Mercury on Friday, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, was alleged to have said that Labor's amendments would undermine the Tasmanian agree ment, that is the RFA, that he doubted that they would pass and, if they did, the government would use its numbers in the lower house to defeat it, effectively bringing about a stalemate. I take that to be an accurate representation of the position of the Prime Minister and, unless it is contradicted in debate on this matter, that is what I assume to be the government's position.It is curious then for the government, through its position as enunciated by Mr Tuckey and by the Prime Minister, to be accusing other people of seeking to undermine agreements already reached, particularly the Tasmanian RFA, when the amendments which Labor is pursuing in effect tick the Tasmanian RFA and the two regional forest agreements already entered into in Victoria, which were known quantities at the time that the Senate legislation committee completed its work inquiring into the legislation.If I might digress, there is a tale in that in itself in that that piece of legislation was referred to the legislation committee late last year and there was actually a debate in this chamber regarding the reporting time to be allowed to that committee to consider the legislation. The government at that time insisted that the legislation be available to be debated in the first sitting week of 1999. That position was, in the view of the opposition, not a reasonable one, given the importance of the legislation and the fact that it would not be dealt with at the time that it was suggested it would be dealt with. The committee was given a small extension to report, I think, in the first sittings in March of this year, but who would have thought that debate on the legislation would not in fact commence—or certainly be concluded—in August of this year. One has to say that the timing of this debate has been a matter entirely in the hands of the government, yet the government has chosen to keep this legislation back and to have the debate now. We have not sought to delay dealing with this legislation. The opposition has made it particularly clear that it took the position that the legislation ought to be improved by amendment, but that it was supporting the legislation—and, of course, with good reason, because the regional forest agreement process is a process which was initiated by Labor and which has the support of Labor. Labor believes that there needs to be some checks and balances in terms of the substantial protection that the Commonwealth legislation proposed in this bill would give to agreements entered into between a state and a federal government. For those reasons, we are pursuing amendments which would in effect have regional forest agreements which are entered into between state and federal governments subject to a disallowance process in this place.The important fact to note, of course, is that the disallowance process proposed by Labor would apply to those agreements which were not publicly known at the time the Senate committee reported to the parliament. They included the Tasmanian RFA and the two regional forest agreements in Victoria. They did not, of course, include the subsequent agreement entered into in Western Australia which has been the subject of so much publicity—indeed a war between federal Minister Tuckey and Western Australia Liberal Premier Richard Court. The situation with regard to that RFA is probably one of the reasons that Labor's amendment should be supported. In that case, we have a regional forest agreement entered into between a state and federal government. We now have, prior to the implementation of the agreement, the state government seeking to change the agreement—to withdraw from aspects of it, to make alterations to it—in the face of sustained opposition to the original agreement from sections of the community: from the conservation movement, from the National Party in Western Australia and from within the Liberal Party's own ranks in Western Australia. And now we have a full-blown war between the federal minister, Mr Tuckey, and the Western Australian Liberal government over a regional forest agreement which Labor clearly says ought to be the subject of a disallowance process in this place.How could the parliament have any confidence in an agreement which, prior to its implementation, one of the parties has sought to withdraw from or seek amendments to—I am not sure which is the correct term, but certainly make substantial changes to—the original agreement. That very circumstance highlights the justification for Labor's position in relation to regional forest agreements which were, at the time the Labor Senate committee reported, unknown to the parliament. As I said, of course that was in the knowledge that Labor was giving its support to the Tasmanian RFA and to the known Victorian regional forest agreements at that time.What did we see on the weekend in Hobart? We saw those statements I have referred to by the Prime Minister and we saw a comment by the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Mrs Napier, alleging, quoting from the Examiner of 22 August, that:Tasmanian Labor senators were traitors to their State for meddling in our Regional Forest Agreement . . . I must say Mrs Napier must have been particularly badly informed when she made that statement, given what I have just said about Labor's position on the Tasmanian RFA.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—She was listening to Paul Lennon.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—Senator Abetz suggests she was listening to Paul Lennon, but I know that she would not have made that statement had she been listening to Paul Lennon. What she was doing of course was listening to her federal colleagues. She was listening to the Prime Minister, who I think was trying to beat the drum and to make an issue where there really is not one in relation to the Tasmanian RFA.Mrs Napier ought to be careful in talking about matters that she obviously knows nothing about. She has obviously made those comments at the behest of the Prime Minister and her federal colleagues—and one can see what has occurred when she listened too closely to her federal colleagues, because she was then put in a position by Mr Howard suggesting that the Tasmanian Liberal Party should maintain a policy of selling Hydro, the electricity generating authority in Tasmania. Mrs Napier backed away from that particular statement at a hundred miles an hour, know ing that the Liberal government lost office in Tasmania at the last elections there on just such a policy.Obviously, Mrs Napier had better be particularly careful about following in the footsteps of her federal colleagues because they will only get her into trouble. She should also be concerned by the Prime Minister's comments I referred to earlier—and I remind the Senate that Labor's amendments do not impact on the Tasmanian RFA in the sense that they are not intended to require that RFA to be the subject of disallowance process—because what she is effectively giving support to is the process that the legislation not pass at all. Frankly, that is more damaging to the Tasmanian RFA than Labor's position. Mrs Napier would want to be fairly careful about the position that she adopts or she will find herself hoisted by her own petard.There is another quote on the matter from Mr Howard, speaking at the Liberal Party conference in Hobart at the weekend, in the Advocate today. It says:Mr Howard told the Liberal Party State Conference in Hobart at the weekend, that Labor members were playing fast and loose on the issue.You could certainly not say that the government is very fast on the issue because, as I just set out, the timetable for the processing of this debate, entirely at the hands of the government, has been anything but fast. In terms of the comment that Labor members were `playing fast and loose' on this issue, if anything is loose on this issue it is the cohesion between the Western Australian Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party as to the RFA process and the agreement that has been entered into. On AM this morning, there was a slanging match, effectively between Mr Tuckey and the Western Australian government, where Mr Tuckey has been blamed in part by the Western Australian government for inflammatory comments which have led to the outrageous behaviour by certain people in relation to a protesters camp in Western Australia. I concur with comments made on AM this morning which deplore that action.In terms of the overall impact of the legislation, there is no doubt that there is a need for federal legislation. That is the reason that Labor will support this bill. As I said, this is a matter of policy which was initiated by Labor. There is no reason why Labor will be backing away from supporting the principles which underlie this legislation. But having said that, Labor will not simply allow the legislation to pass without seeking to make it better and fairer. In terms of our amendments and particularly the amendment which requires future RFAs to be the subject of disallowance, Labor is of the strong view that there needs to be a process which requires some scrutiny of agreements entered into between the Commonwealth and states about particular areas, given that the agreements which are entered into under this legislation will become binding with the potential for substantial compensation to be payable by the Commonwealth in the future if an agreement is not adhered to.If the parliament is now going to say, `We support the Commonwealth binding itself to providing compensation in the future to all future RFAs'—and we could be talking about regional forest agreements which are entered into many years down the track, and the agreements look likely to run for a period of 20 years in each case—then why should the federal parliament not have a say in approving or disapproving of such agreements, given the Commonwealth responsibility to pay compensation and the exemption from certain other Commonwealth legislation of areas covered by regional forest agreements?We support the process of establishing the agreements. When that process is properly followed and when there is clear community support for an RFA, why should there be any concern? Why indeed? Can one say that about the Western Australian RFA, the subject of so much debate at the moment? The answer is clearly no. In such a case—and I do not need to create a fictional example because we have one in the Western Australian RFA—Labor's amendment would mean that Labor would be looking very carefully and making a considered decision on that particular RFA in the process of any disallowance motion which might be moved. Perhaps in certain cases Labor would move disallowance motions in relation to future RFAs. That process, to require that the matter be the subject of scrutiny, would obviously be available to any member in the House of Representatives or senator in the Senate.With our amendments, if the parliament supports an RFA then it will have as much certainty as, or arguably more certainty than, it would have under the RFA legislation as proposed by the government without our amendments. There is the distinct possibility, once an RFA has gone through the disallowance process, that challenges would be made to an individual RFA in certain circumstances for, perhaps, want of administrative process or the like. There is nothing that this Senate can do to prevent that. But, having gone through the process of scrutiny in the parliament, the likelihood of success of any such action would be reduced because—one would have thought—any such deficiencies would have been raised in considering whether there was proper process in establishing the RFA in the first place.So indeed our measure is arguably a measure which gives greater certainty. Does it shorten the period of the RFA? No. Does it limit the time at which it can be implemented? Yes, but effectively only by 15 sitting days from it being tabled—in the context of normal sitting patterns of this place by a fairly short time. In the end, is that not a better result if we obtain more certainty?But if the case were to arise—I do not believe this will be the case, so I guess I am saying this as a cautionary note—that each and every RFA, including the Tasmanian and Victorian RFAs that were entered into prior to February this year, had to come before the parliament and had to be the subject of a disallowance process, then what is the problem in relation to those RFAs? I think everyone here can count—they would not be here if they could not—and the fact of the matter is that Labor has indicated that it is supporting those RFAs, and I take it that the government is, so 35 and 29 seems to add up to a lot more than 50 per cent of the Senate. I would have thought that would suffice to ensure that there would be no uncertainty about those RFAs in the future. I will be listening very carefully to what Senator McGauran is going to say, as I understand he is going to follow me—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—It will be a lot better than yours.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I hope so, Senator Abetz, because I hope the timber industry is not expecting him to support their case, given his record. I am reminded of the treble he predicted some years ago—was it that St Kilda, Manly and Peter McGauran were all going to get up and they did not? So just be careful what you say—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—Senator McGauran. We would not want you to jonah the case of the RFAs in your contribution.13:17:007471McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I join this important debate on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , a significant national debate that we are having. You would have noticed that the previous speakers—all from their particular states—were able to reference the importance of this legislation to their particular state and region. While the bill has a national significance, it does have a more specific rural and regional significance, bringing with it environmental and economic advantages for the rural areas. In effect, it gives legal backing to the forest agreements—bringing certainty, to all intents and purposes, for the next 20 years, as the agreements hold. I have to disagree with Senator Allison, who seems to want more time to discuss these matters. It has been an absolutely exhaustive process, begun way back in 1992 by the previous government.So it is very important that the legislation be passed. As the previous speaker has told us, the numbers weigh in very heavily in support of this legislation. But it was not always that way. We have now basically had the Labor Party opposition dragged kicking and screaming to supporting it. The irony of it all is that back in 1992 it was their legislation, their concept to produce regional forest agreements which we supported at the time. But as soon as they went into opposition they went cold on the idea. They saw a different constituency to appeal to, they backed off and could not support it—in the face of the importance of this legislation, in the face of the fact that they introduced it when they were in government, in the face of the fact that it employs 82,000 people, of which many, unashamedly, are their constituents: timber workers, true blue-collar workers.It is in fact the second largest manufacturing industry in Australia, with a turnover of $11 billion. It should be noted too that we have a trade deficit in this industry: we import well over $1 billion—it could be up to $1.5 billion—of timber products. Yet we know we can create a sustainable and renewable resource to meet that trade deficit, to meet the employment requirements of so many unskilled blue-collar workers and to really have a rural and regional industry once and for all which is sustainable and down pat. The Labor Party in opposition did not support this legislation but now they tell us, thankfully, that they will—and we accept their support, graciously, I should add. But it is only because of the union pressure put on them. And that is good. This is where the unions do work. This is a good union working for their workers. The heavy pressure that the CFMEU put on the Labor Party has obviously paid off. Although they are seeking to move amendments, they are at least going to support the main thrust of this bill.But their amendments are playing to another constituency, at the possible cost of their blue-collar workers. It was Mr Trevor Smith, the secretary of the CFMEU, who attacked the federal ALP, in particular Mr Beazley. I quote from a press release of Mr Smith's some months ago regarding the amendment that the previous speaker, Senator O'Brien, was foreshadowing:Moving an amendment which is inconsistent with the National Forest Policy Statement and commitments given by previous Federal Labor Governments is a disgrace . . . What we have here is the ALP demonstrating a lack of process, a lack of nerve—well, of course—and a huge lack of common sense . . . It is a pity that those who need to show strong leadership in this area failed their responsibilities.While the CFMEU does not support the ALP amendment and signals the dangers of the amendment, it certainly has, at the very least, dragged you to support this legislation in its third reading.The importance of this legislation, as the explanatory memorandum points out to us, is that the RFAs are a central focus of a package of measures designed to implement the national forest policy adapted by the Commonwealth and all the states and territories in relation to native forests. The completion of an RFA for a region will ensure the following: firstly, the long-term protection of environmental and heritage values through the establishment and management of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and, secondly, the ecologically sustainable management and use of native forests outside that reserve system. To date we have had three RFAs signed—East Gippsland, Central Highlands and the Tasmanian regions. The process of assessment and negotiation of the RFAs is currently under way in the nine other regions. In total there are 12 RFAs.As I said previously, in 1992 the Commonwealth and the states and territories signed the national forest policy statement, which outlined agreed objectives and policies for the future. It provided national goals in 11 areas which indicated the breadth of the forestry issues that needed to be addressed by the Commonwealth: conservation; wood production and industry development; integrated and coordinated decision making and management; private native forests; plantations; water supply and catchment management; tourism and other economic and social opportunities; employment; work force education and training; public awareness, education and involvement; research and development; and international responsibilities—11 areas of national objectives.A regional forest agreement is an agreement between the Commonwealth government and a state government about the long-term management and use of forests in a particular region. Its purpose is to reduce the uncertainty, duplication and fragmentation in government decision making by producing a durable agreement on management and use of our forests. There are three broad criteria, for biodiversity, old-growth forests and wilderness. Firstly, a benchmark of 15 per cent of the pre-1750s distribution of forest community is to be protected within the conservation reserves. Secondly, there will be retention in reserves of at least 60 per cent of existing old growth, increasing up to 100 per cent for rare forest community old growth. Thirdly, there will be protection of 90 per cent or more, where practical, of high quality wilderness.As I pointed out to the Senate, in Victoria the East Gippsland and the Central Highlands RFAs have been signed. I particularly point out East Gippsland, my home territory, to point out the advantages of a regional forest agreement. Arguably, East Gippsland was, before the agreement, the most studied region of the state from the perspective of land use with extensive public consultation. They had exhausted it; in fact, it had become a political football. It had become a centre of protest and study. Anything to delay the process or to bring the industry down was used in East Gippsland. For example, back in 1977 the LCC—the government, in effect—commissioned a study. In 1983 another study on the East Gippsland area was commissioned—an alpine study. In 1985 there was a Victorian timber industry study. In 1986 there were another two. All this held up the growth of the industry and created enormous uncertainty.There were huge protests at the time. In 1987 there was a review of the previous study—can you believe it? In 1990, then Minister Crabbe made a decision—another study. In 1991 there was the LCC rivers and stream study and another LCC wilderness study. In 1992 the federal government Resources Assessment Commission undertook a timber inquiry. In 1994 there was an old-growth study undertaken. These were all undertaken in this one particular region, which is not a particularly massive one. In contrast, the regional forest agreement, when signed and backed by this particular piece of legislation, will be set for 20 years. Can you imagine the uncertainty the timber industry faced under all those studies? We know only too well about the disruptive, sometimes violent and certainly socially disruptive protests that were undertaken in the East Gippsland. The town of Orbost was subjected to an invasion of protesters, many of whom were, it was proven at the time, simply taking social welfare cheques and becoming full-time protesters up in the hills—chaining themselves to tractors or climbing trees. Quite frankly, they would do anything for a 10-second grab on the 6 o'clock news.They achieved more by the signing of the RFA in the East Gippsland than they ever did previously. In East Gippsland we were able to meet and in many cases exceed the nationally agreed criteria that I have just read out. That means that at least 15 per cent of the pre-European distribution of each type of forest, at least 60 per cent of old growth and 90 per cent of wilderness have been protected in East Gippsland. In addition, the RFA has ensured that processes are in place to ensure the forests of East Gippsland are managed in a way that is ecologically sustainable. Senator Abetz will be interested to know that there is still a residual of protesters in East Gippsland—you never quite flush them out of the forest. I think some of them just enjoyed living full time in the forest, and there is nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as they use the stream more often than they did.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Was Senator Margetts flushed out of the forest?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I suspect that Senator Margetts has gone back to the forest. There is nothing wrong with that; that is a good, healthy lifestyle. But let us face it: it is proven that they are all taking their social welfare cheques and becoming full-time protesters in the forest. However, I digress.The protesters in East Gippsland have failed to acknowledge that an additional 1,200 hectares of the Goolengook forest have been protected in a dedicated reserve as a result of the RFA and that the environmental values of the Goolengook are well represented in the overall reserve system. That is proof positive, and East Gippsland is a classic case, of the benefits of the regional forest agreement. The regional forest agreements have been applauded by many within the environmental movement. It is only some on the fringes who will never be brought to the table of agreement. It does not suit their political purposes, their economic purposes, their social purposes or any purpose—name it and it does not suit them. Senator Brown represents them. You cannot bring them to the table. They do not want to be brought to the table. Their whole lifestyle will collapse if they come to any sort of agreement where there is a sustainable industry where people can be employed, where there is an economic advantage and where you can balance one against the other.As I say, Senator Brown represents them, but he is in a small minority, I believe, within the environmental movement. The World Wide Fund for Nature has given great credit to this government's environmental policies, in particular its RFAs. Let me quote Dr Claude Martine, the Director-General of the World Wide Fund for Nature, which is a most respected—or noted, I should say—conservation group. He said that Australia's policy for the conservation of forest biodiversity and protected areas significantly exceeded the minimum goals of the WWF. That is not the boxing federation, it is the World Wide Fund for Nature. Dr Martine, the Director-General of the WWF, said that it was very impressed with Australia's program for conservation and sustainable use of forests. That is a pretty big tick.But we are not just stitching up 20-year agreements to bring certainty into the industry. We got no credit from Senator Allison for this, but we know that running parallel to this we have to have an incentive system in place for plantations. The more plantations you have running parallel to a forest policy, the less trees you have to cut down. We support that policy. It will take many years to get it to the stage that we would want, but we are seeking by the year 2020 to treble the number of forest plantation estates we have in this country. That is a goal we believe is perfectly achievable, and we believe it should be acknowledged. Australia has an estimated total plantation estate at the moment of over a million hectares. To achieve the goal of trebling that will require the establishment of about 80,000 hectares of plantation per year, or two million hectares over 25 years, and we are on track to achieve that goal. We have in place incentives and codes of practice in relation to achieving that particular goal.More than that, we have encouraged the industry to the tune of over $100 million in relation to structural changes that in many respects the regional forest agreements will bring about. The adjustment program will assist the native forest industry businesses and workers affected by the introduction of such agreements. Further to this, we have allocated over $31 million to wood and paper industry strategies to promote growth and investment in the forest industries, including greater downstream processing, value enhancement plantation development and farm forestry. Under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia, a further $36.5 million over four years has been provided to the farm forestry program. So there is a flip side to this, and that is the encouragement of the plantations.We believe we are at last bringing order into this most troubled industry and we are giving it legislative backing. And at the final hour we have the support of the opposition. So the parliament in fact gives great support to this legislation. Gone will be the days when timber trucks surrounded this Parliament House in one of the biggest, most vigorous protests we have ever had at this parliament. I cannot think of one bigger or worse, or more damning of the then government. Gone will be those days, hopefully. Gone will be the days when all the conservation movements were able to band together to bring down this industry, to create havoc in our forests, to take enormous political advantage in the run-up to an election on this particular issue, to blow it out of proportion and to exaggerate and misrepresent the issues. It will all be down on paper, signed and agreed to. There will certainly be hiccups along the way; nothing ever runs completely smoothly. But we have brought a degree of stability and certainty into this industry, and I urge the Senate to support the bill.13:36:007474Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—We are debating the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . As you well know from your experience in Tasmania, Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry, this is a very emotional issue, and so it should be. There are great issues, and everybody realises there are great issues. For example, there are the issues of jobs and economic sustainability. On the other hand there is the issue of the symbols of our nation, the things that make us Australian, those things of the mind and spirit which we want to maintain. It is not by bread alone that the world lives.The dilemma that these conflicting demands make is set out in the legislation itself—the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998—where it says that any agreement entered into in accordance with this legislation must take into account environmental values—including those for old-growth wilderness, endangered species, the National Estate, world heritage, indigenous heritage—the economic values of forested areas and of forest industries, social values and the principle of ecologically sustainable management. The difficulty with all these principles, which no doubt everybody would agree upon, is this: who is to decide what the evidence is to which these principles are to be applied?This is the great problem in this area: you send one expert out and he or she sees a pristine piece of forest that should be preserved no matter what, whereas another expert goes out and says it is a very poor showing of tree growth—it is in the area of decision making on the facts rather than on principles. As I understand it, everybody says, `If there are jobs to be obtained, they ought to be obtained,' and those who cut the timber down say, `Yes, we want to preserve the environment,' but the issue is: what is the right judgment about a particular area or indeed about the whole of the country?In deciding that issue there are different ways of looking at things. Last week I was in Sydney, a fine city, with my son on the shores of Bondi beach and we were looking for the whale that got everybody in Sydney so excited—and so it should. As I understand it, it is a right whale, the sort of whale that used to be harvested. We did not see the whale but lots of other people did and they were very excited about it. Is that whale a thing of beauty, a piece of magic upon the waves, a matter that raises the spirit, or is it a resource that can be harvested? What is the answer to that question? The answer in the case of that particular whale is clearly that it is a matter of magic. It was a moment of magic that you could look upon the waves and see the whale, and it is certainly not a resource to be harvested.Who is going to decide those issues? We already make such judgments within the community. We say that the carp which pollute the river systems of my state are certainly not worth saving. We certainly say the Murray cod should be preserved. These are simply instances of the great questions, and they are the sorts of questions upon which this parliament ought to have a say. The regional forest agreement concept was developed by the Australian Labor Party when it was in government. It is a concept that hopes to gather together around a table, metaphorically at least and in the right spirit, a number of people who can come to some agreement about how our forests are to be treated.As elected representatives of the Australian people, we have an overriding obligation to see that agreements about how the resources of this country should be used are right and correct, not only legally but also in terms of what is best for Australian citizens. It seems to me that, as this regional forests legislation presently stands, there is no concept that parliament will in any way have a say in the agreements that are made. It seems that these agreements will be made just between states, between the ministers of the various states around the country. I do not deny for one minute that they will go about the task with every intention of getting the right result for their state. Nevertheless, we as an elected parliament must have a say in whether or not the particular agreement is a good or bad one. Otherwise why are we elected? How can we responsibly shut ourselves out from the task that we are elected to perform? The questions about our natural resources and of what is magical in Australia and should be treated as such—as things of the soul and things of the heart, as distinct from resources to raise income—come up again and again. When they are discussed, they should be discussed as far as possible in a dispassionate way with one side respecting the other.I acknowledge that Senator McGauran, who knows Gippsland well—he grew up there—came in here to put the position as he saw it. He went a bit far when talking about demonstrators and protesters. He said that the protesters were, in large part at least, social welfare cheque recipients. I do not know whether there is any evidence for that but, even if they were, does it mean that people who receive social welfare cheques are not entitled to protest? He talked about timber trucks surrounding the Western Australian parliament, and he said that that was a good protest. Although he did not say this, the inference was that it was because they were protesting about the right thing. This legislation will be able to work only if the people who come to it come with respect for each other. This is an area that requires not the smart line of denigrating the other side but a debate and, ultimately, an agreement based upon mutual respect.There are certain areas of life which will always lead to debate. One of those is industrial law and what goes on in the workplace. There will always be debates about that because, on the one hand, the employer wants to make a success of the business and to make a return upon it and, on the other hand, the employees want a fair return for their labour and want to work in safety in a way that enables them to go about their social life. There is conflict in those two positions which will forever lead to legislation.It is the same with Corporations Law. We have to pass laws that enable entrepreneurs to go about taking that risk which is likely to produce income, likely to produce new ideas and likely to lead to a better lifestyle. They have to be allowed to go about their business of being businesspeople. Against that, we have to have laws that restrict people so that they cannot dishonestly take from shareholders what is properly the shareholders' due and so they cannot treat the environment in such a way that it becomes degraded, such as the oil spill in Sydney Harbour recently. So you will always have conflict in that area. You will also always have conflict in the family law area, and that is so notorious that I will not go into examples.The regional forest agreements are a category where there are difficult issues. It can be very hard to work out what the right decision is, and the right decision might change from time to time—what is right now might not be right three or four years down the line. It is for that reason that there should be some oversighting by this parliament of the agreements. There should be some exercise on the part of the institution elected by the people of Australia to see whether or not the agreement in this most vital area has been properly dealt with.On the issue of how timber is to be treated, Australia has some magnificent forests. The magnificent forests down the west coast of Tasmania and in the highlands of Victoria are the ones I know best, but I have also been into the Daintree forest and through Kakadu. To dismiss the greatness of those forests and to have them destroyed is, in the minds of some people, beyond acceptance. We want to live in a world where our feelings can soar high and our souls can be uplifted. Timber has been exploited forever, and we should be very careful when exploiting it or similar areas. It seems to me that, as this legislation now stands, there is not that check upon the people who will, in effect, be controlling all those areas from now on.This legislation simply gives some legislative underpinning to an agreement. It does not set out the agreement itself. It defines certain terms that will be used in the agreement, and it defines them in terms which it is hoped will strike that very difficult balance between exploitation and those things of the heart and the soul that I was talking about. It says that the Commonwealth cannot terminate an RFA except when it is done in terms of the provisions set out in the RFA. There is nothing in the legislation itself that says how it is to be terminated, and I would have thought that that was a most vital issue. I would have thought that that was the sort of thing that this chamber—indeed this parliament—ought to have some say about. Section 5 of the bill says:(1) RFA wood is not prescribed goods for the purposes of the Export Control Act 1982 . It goes on to say in subsection (3):The effect of RFA forestry operations must be disregarded for the purposes of the following . . . the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 . . . the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 . . . the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 .They are vital acts. They form a body of legislation that should not lightly be put aside. They are acts of this parliament. So any agreements made on the basis that those acts do not apply should certainly be subject to an oversight by this chamber. If they are not, it means that governments and government officials in the various states can ignore the legislation that we have passed as a parliament—legislation that has gone through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, been signed off by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen and then come into law. That legislation can be set aside without this parliament having an opportunity to see what is put in its place.The legislation put to us by the government comes from ideas that were put forward by the Labor Party when it was in government. The opposition, the Labor Party, now says that that idea ought to be fleshed out, ought to be executed in terms that allow a responsible government and a responsible parliament to carry out their functions. That is why we press the amendment.13:55:007476Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—In the few minutes left before question time I wish to speak on a particular part of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998. The Democrats believe that there are so many problems with this bill, deceptively short looking bill that it is, that we have each chosen to address separate areas of the bill. In particular, I would like to look at the fact that it unfairly discriminates against the plantation industry. The national forest policy statement is claimed to be the impetus behind this regional forest agreement legislation. I note that in the explanatory memorandum to the bill it states that the bill gives legislative support to the RFA process `as part of the implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement'. This is a total distortion of that forestry policy statement. The RFA process seeks to add more subsidies and completely and utterly entrench Australia's forest industry in our native forests, with a large part of the RFAs meaning that native forests are woodchipped and sent overseas.The NFPS is fundamentally based on the transition from old-growth forests to regrowth and plantation timber forests. However, the regional forest agreements process and the legislation not only seem to completely ignore the plantation sector; they provide no information from that sector and also significantly disadvantage that sector.With the information that has been made available to the Senate committee on this matter, it is difficult to believe that the Commonwealth and the states have accidentally overlooked the trends in the timber industry, the goals of the NFPS and the considerable propping up given to the native forest sector at the expense of the plantation industry. The forests issue in parliament, and often in the media, has largely been portrayed as a stoush between loggers and environmentalists, and while I am sure that is a very convenient stereotype to perpetuate, the truth is rather more complex. The Australian forest industry is now more a plantation than a native forest industry, and this will become more and more so as time goes on. However, an observer would not learn this from listening to those in this chamber who profess to represent the forest sector or the forest communities or glean such an understanding from consideration of the RFAs from the RFA legislation.Perhaps nothing emphasises the flawed nature of the RFA process and legislation as much as its failure to consider the largest forest resource, the only increasing forest resource, the largest sector of the industry and the generator of the most employment and the best prospective employment outcomes. Evidence to the committee from a number of witnesses to appear before it certainly gives rise to the suspicion that the native forest tail may be continuing to wag the forest industry dog, because many of the major companies involved have interests in both sectors. Their political imperative has been to protect a highly subsidised and privileged access to a public resource, the native forests, ahead of using relatively unsubsidised or more directly or appropriately costed plantation resources.The Democrats understand that it is natural for those who have interests with extensive subsidies in possession to resist any methods or any changes that might actually threaten or seek to reduce those subsidies, but on this issue the Democrats would prefer to see applied the so-called level playing field rhetoric so often heard from the government. This alone would do much to preserve native forests, protect biodiversity and reduce social conflict, and it is likely to do so while boosting employment, contributing to gross national product and fostering regional development. Instead, the Australian community is being subjected to a prime example of doublespeak. The stated goal of the process is to develop internationally competitive forests and forest based industries. The explanatory memorandum to the legislation says that it is intended to implement a national forest policy statement which has as its stated goal a transition from native forest exploitation to plantation harvesting.Debate interrupted.Questions Without Notice747774777477Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister inform the Senate of just what the Minister for Defence meant when he stated that, `If he didn't get Malcolm McIntosh for the Secretary of the Department of Defence, he'd return to the bush within six months'? Wasn't this statement recounted by the head of the Prime Minister's department, as detailed in Mr Barratt's sworn Federal Court affidavit, and not objected to by the government's counsel? Wasn't this a blunt threat by the Minister for Defence to resign if he did not get his own way, no matter who was a friend of the Prime Minister?7477Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This seems to continue a line of questioning commenced on the last occasion that parliament sat. On that occasion, I took objection on the basis that the matters were before the court. I think another valid objection, really, as it relates to Minister Moore, is that in many ways it was inappropriate for him to respond to allegations made by the instigator of the action. So, to some extent, it has been a one-sided debate. I think that is probably still the attitude of Mr Moore—to engage in the debate and put his side of the story is, really, unhelpful to resolution of the issue. The important thing from the government's perspective is that we have heard the orders of the court, and the government is proceeding pursuant to those orders. If in fact there is a vacancy in the position, the vacancy will be filled according to the proper processes as well.7478Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Assuming, of course, that the government does finally successfully unravel the botched sacking of Mr Barratt, can the minister confirm that the list of potential replacements as Secretary to the Department of Defence is getting shorter by the day as likely candidates realise just what a poisoned chalice heading the department under Minister Moore will be? And will the job still be limited to a six- to 12-month period as originally envisaged, despite the continued instability this would mean for Australia's defence?7478Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not think that one should assume that it would be an appointment for a short period of time. In relation to Minister Moore, yes, he is a demanding minister, but I think that many of those demands related to the submarine project. I think Australia's defence position, as well as that of the Australian taxpayer, is probably better now as a result of Mr Moore being a demanding minister. We now know what is necessary to rectify that particular program and what the real cost of doing so will be. So I certainly will not apologise for a minister doing his job, even if that is demanding according to what some officials might believe to be necessary. Minister Moore has been a good minister and will continue to be so, and he certainly has the confidence of the Prime Minister.74787478Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question without notice is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate about recent business surveys regarding the Australian economy? Will the minister also inform the Senate of the results reflected in recent economic figures published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?7478Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Coonan for that important question. One comment that I think can be made about the Australian economy at the moment is that we have an economy that is strong. Recent employment statistics show that there are now more Australians in work than at any other time in our history. In fact, almost 8.8 million Australians, out of the recently confirmed figure of 19 million, now have a job. This means that almost half a million more new jobs have been created in the 3½ years that we have been in office. Trend employment in Australia has now risen for 26 consecutive months. In July 1999 Australia's unemployment rate was at its lowest level since July 1990 at some seven per cent. Teenage unemployment was at its lowest level since October 1990.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Who was in power then?WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Quirke asks who was in power prior to this government coming to office. It is clear that Senator Quirke's government was in power, Mr Keating's government, and of course that was the government that created the recession that we had to have.We must, of course, remember that economic growth is the major determinant of employment growth. In Australia our economy grew by about 4.8 per cent over the year to the March quarter. That is faster growth than America and faster than the OECD average. I will quote a comment of the Prime Minister of Singapore about Australia. He said:In many parts of Asia we were concentrating on fast growth but forgetting the fundamentals.He went on to say:Australia didn't, and is now winning the race.I would like to now inform the Senate of some recent survey results for the June 1999 quarter. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics company profits survey shows that company profits have grown by 10.3 per cent through the year. This is good news. Obviously, the more profitable companies are the more money they will have to grow and to expand staff numbers, increasing employment levels.In the June quarter figures, average weekly earnings are also worth noting. For all employees the June quarter shows 3.3 per cent growth in average weekly earnings above the inflation level. I think Senator George Campbell in the past pointed out that real wages in fact fell for a number of years during the terms of the Hawke and Keating governments, and it is very encouraging to see that, under this government, under the sound policies that this government is pursuing, real wages are rising.Surveys also show that business confidence is high. Low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, high growth, a surplus budget and a new tax system as part of our major reform agenda show that this government has its eye fixed on the main game, its eye fixed on making sure that Australia has an economy which can create the jobs for our young people into the future.74797479O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister explain how the government's refusal to release the reasons ministers chose to override departmental advice in relation to 16 of the 60 successful Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program projects, or even to identify those 16 projects, is consistent with the Auditor-General's requirements that:. . . reasons for decisions and recommendations . . . should be accessible under Freedom of Information provisions—and that—. . . decisions in relation to the approval or refusal of applications for grants are transparent and well-documented. 7479Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, we use as part of our guidance in these matters the Freedom of Information Act.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Guidance?BH4Senator HILL—Yes, when ministers are asked questions as to what they believe should be released or not. In any event, in this matter, it was overtaken by Senator Faulkner taking formal process under the Freedom of Information Act. The reasons for which certain information was declined have been given to Senator Faulkner in full, and I suggest you get a copy of those reasons from him.7479O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister chose not to address the part of the question that went to the recommendations of the Auditor-General, which were the nub of the question—not the Freedom of Information Act. I ask the minister: what else do the terms that the Auditor-General used—that is, the terms `accessible' and `transparent'—mean if they do not encompass availability for parliamentary or public scrutiny?7479Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—All public availability is subject to limits. We are a government that supports transparency. We believe in open government. I think, fairly, we could be said to provide a great deal of information, and certainly a lot more than our predecessor. But the Auditor-General's guidance is in fact addressed in greater detail under the Freedom of Information Act, and what I said to the honourable senator is that we use that act to give us assistance in interpreting the Auditor-General's requirements. That is what happened in this particular instance.74797479Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is addressed to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Could the minister inform the Senate how Australian workers and their families have benefited under the Howard government reforms, and what reforms does the government propose to further improve the living standards for all Australians?7480Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is a critically important question.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why don't you go and make a policy statement?LD4Senator ALSTON—You are excruciatingly embarrassed by this sort of information, aren't you? You clearly have no concept of—let alone commitment to—what the Australian public expects from governments these days. You think that somehow they are very impressed with the sordid deals that you do with the ACTU. You think that going out there and signing up to eight accords over a 13-year period somehow delivers good government. It delivers quite the opposite.RF4COOKSenator Cook—And it did.LD4Senator ALSTON—It did, did it? All right. So you are saying that that is the best you can do. Under us, real wages have grown by 9.1 per cent. Under Labor, real wages grew by only 1.3 per cent. There you are—out of Senator Cook's mouth. `Delivering the goods', they call that—1.3 per cent over 13 years.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, just a moment. There are people on my left shouting and behaving in a disorderly manner.LD4Senator ALSTON—In other words, to use a classic ACTUism, the rank and file were barely treading water.AW5CARRSenator Carr—What about executive salaries?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, stop shouting.LD4Senator ALSTON—But what happened to the low paid? They suffered a 15 per cent decline. In other words, they sank without trace as far as you were concerned. They were the sorts of outcomes that were available to workers under your accord arrangements. Under the coalition government, in stark contrast, dispute levels in the workplace are at their lowest since 1913. Unemployment is down to seven per cent, the lowest since you know when—Mr Keating at his best delivering the goods, once again at the expense of ordinary workers.The Australian public well understand the recipe. It is not very difficult. If you do not have ideological blinkers, it is blindingly apparent. What you have to do is get the economy ticking over. That is the best way you create jobs. You do not run around screaming about training programs and all these other ways of keeping people entertained when you cannot find real jobs for them. You do not tip hundreds of millions of dollars into schemes that will benefit your mates in the union movement. You do not run scare campaigns against the government's legislation to reform the labour sector. The Labor Party does not seem to understand any of that, and I suppose it is not really surprising.You have a big chance now that the music has stopped for Mr Kelty—who talked about wanting a fight; who said if we wanted a war that we would have the full symphony. Now the music has stopped and he is getting off. He has nowhere to go, of course—there are no chairs left. They offered him a contestable preselection in Holt. That is what they offered him. None of this, `We'll promise you a seat in parliament', which they did for this lot over here who have much less going for them, one would have thought, in terms of union credentials. How humiliating: they said, `You can go in there and contest Holt.'10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you should address your remarks to the chair, and I remind you of the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I am delighted that you brought the question to my attention because Senator Lightfoot very presciently asked me whether I am aware of any alternative industrial relations proposals. I certainly am. Of course, the punters out there are, and they are terrified. What they do not want is more of the same. Why do you think they are deserting the union movement in droves? There has been a 140,000 decline in union membership over the last two years. That is not a policy approach we will espouse. We are much more interested in improving the welfare of ordinary Australians. We do that by getting the economy going. So there is a very clear demarcation line. This is the Grand Canyon, by comparison. Our approach is forward looking, delivering productivity gains, giving workers what they really want—that is, more money in their pay packets. Your IR policy is all about trying to corral more of them into the trade union movement.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you should not address your remarks directly across the chair.LD4Senator ALSTON—I did not mean you, Madam President. I know you do not believe in a word of that. I was referring to the Labor Party. When Mr Beazley said that Mr Kelty's counsel had always been valued by the Labor Party, it really says it all, doesn't it? When Mr Crean said the same thing, we understand why. (Time expired)7481Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Can you add to the answer?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, you are out of order.WP6Senator LIGHTFOOT—Senator Cook, you were in Kalgoorlie recently and you said that the resource industry was finished. You want to support the resource industry.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot, resume your seat. Your behaviour is totally out of order.WP6Senator LIGHTFOOT—I apologise, even though I was provoked, Madam President. The minister mentioned alternative industrial relations proposals very briefly. Can the minister expand upon those and perhaps tell the Senate what threats these would pose to Australia's continued economic growth?7481Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We are a long way out from the next election but it is important to get it on the record that you are not going to get any serious policy proposals for at least another 12 months. What you are going to get is a bit of hand wringing at the national conference, a bit of talking about these things, a few seminars and things that Mr Beazley can pop into for five minutes before going home and having a good lie down. But you will not get any serious policy alternatives. What you will get will be an ongoing scare campaign. You will have all sorts of things short of trying to work out how you can improve the state of the economy, how you can keep interest rates low and how you can get more money in people's pockets. These are the sorts of things that ordinary Australians, and certainly members of the work force, are interested in but they are not going to get them. That is the very sad thing. It just means that the only growth area for the Labor Party is for people to move into the Senate out of the trade union training ground which, I must say, has been a very poor reward for all those workers who have found that they have had to contribute. And look what they have got for their investment! (Time expired)74817481Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK RF4WAALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I ask whether the minister shares the Prime Minister's view expressed in parliament on 12 August that:We live in a situation . . . where ministers take advice but, in the end, ministers make decisions and ministers stand by those decisions and are accountable for those decisions.If so, why is the minister, together with his colleague Senator Hill, who is jointly responsible for the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, shirking accountability by, firstly, refusing to identify the 16 projects which failed to meet the assessment benchmark of 15 points and, secondly, withholding from public scrutiny the reasons why they chose to ignore departmental advice in relation to these 16 projects?7481Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think the Prime Minister was quite correct. What he was saying was that, at the end of the day, you do not slavishly follow the advice you get from the bureaucracy. As I understand it, that is the Labor Party's position as well. In other words, if you call for advice, that is what you get. But, at the end of the day, you make up your mind. If you say, `I am going to delegate'—in other words, vacate the field, do a Senator Faulkner and say, `I'm not interested. I'll be busy playing politics back home in New South Wales and I will go along with what ever the bureaucracy says'—that is a different approach to ours. If the Labor Party takes the view that we should identify certain projects simply because of its prurient political interest in the subject, that is not a sufficient reason. What we are obliged to do is to provide proper reasons for the decisions we take—and we did—and to choose the best projects. The Labor Party, the opposition, knows as well as I do that it has been given every opportunity on a number of occasions to point to any single project that it regards as not deserving of our support. The mere fact that there is disagreement between the bureaucrats—and remember that there was a joint task force of both Senator Hill's department and mine offering advice at one level—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Which you ignored.LD4Senator ALSTON—You just want to throw these epithets around. You say that if you take advice on board, you consider it and reject it, that is ignoring. That is what you say, isn't it?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Where are your reasons?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston is answering Senator Cook's question. Senator Faulkner, you ought not to be interrupting in the way that you are.LD4Senator ALSTON—That is the essential difference, that we chose to exercise the discretion that was vested in us. We took a good look at all of these projects—and there were some hundreds of them—and we made a judgment. Is the Labor Party seriously saying that we should not have done that, that we should have followed the advice of the bureaucrats? I was simply pointing out, Madam President, before you correctly told Senator Faulkner to pull his head in, that we had conflicting advice on some projects—in other words, the Centenary of Federation advice differed in some respects from the advice from the joint task force. Again, that simply highlights that people of good will can disagree on these matters. At the end of the day, we were charged with making judgments, and we did, and we have nothing to apologise for in that regard. I think you will find that all the recipients of those policies would share the same view. If you want to point to any of those projects that you say should not have been funded, I would be delighted to hear from you.7482Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I have not had an answer to two parts of my question. The first concerned the refusal to identify the 16 projects which failed to meet the assessment benchmark of 15 points. Minister, can you say why you have refused to do that? If you believe you have not refused to do that, when and where did you do that? And be honest and straightforward about that. The second part of the question referred to withholding from public scrutiny the reasons why they chose to ignore departmental advice in relation to these 16 projects. Why are you withholding from public scrutiny the reasons for ignoring departmental advice on these 16 projects? Will you give us an explanation on that point as well?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your question should be asked to the chair, not directly across to the minister, and the answer also should be directed the same way.7482Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yes, Madam President, and I take it that I can ignore the gratuitous abuse and advice that I got in that question. Madam President, Senator Hill quite rightly pointed out that these matters were very carefully considered. We gave the reasons that we were required to give.RF4COOKSenator Cook—When?LD4Senator ALSTON—We gave reasons for them. You think that therefore, if cabinet comes to a decision and has reasons for that, you can argue that somehow that should be in the public arena?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Yes. That's what the Auditor-General says.LD4Senator ALSTON—That is what you say, that cabinet decisions—Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner!LD4Senator ALSTON—One cannot help those who cannot help themselves, Madam President. If Senator Faulkner is seriously saying for the public record that he believes that cabinet decisions should be made available because the opposition would like them to be on the record, that is a preposterous proposal.Senator Faulkner interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, don't interrupt.LD4Senator ALSTON—The fact is, those projects did not fail to meet assessment benchmarks. They did not, as Senator Faulkner has tried to peddle in the media, fail to meet minimum criteria. They simply got point scores, which we took into account in making the judgments we did. (Time expired)7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—On a point of order, Madam President: I ask you to consider under standing order 203(e), I think it is, your capacity to bring Senator Faulkner into line as a serial wrecker of the Senate. I raise this because, in the answer that was just given, twice you directly called Senator Faulkner to order, as you frequently do, and rightly so—I am sure you have everybody's support in doing so. After calling him to order he simply continued, which is, of course, why you had to call him to order the second time. The only reason you did not have to call him to order a third time is that the time for the answer expired.Madam President, under that standing order I ask you to consider what you can do about people who serially wreck, and I ask you to consider it not on the basis of what he has done today but on the basis that he is a permanent serial wrecker of time in the Senate.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: I also ask you take into account, as you rule on that point of order, the fact that Senator Alston cannot answer these questions, being protected by, of all people, Senator Vanstone, to waste more time in question time. Let's get on with it and get this minister to answer the questions that are properly directed to him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I shall look at the matters that have been raised.74837483Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill. Minister, are you aware that last Saturday in Wattle Block near Northcliffe in the south-west of Western Australia, a group of 40 men, armed with baseball bats, axes and sledgehammers and masked with balaclavas, ransacked and burned a forest conservations' camp and threatened to kill the forest protesters? Are you further aware that your colleague Mr Wilson Tuckey addressed an angry group of pro-logging protesters outside the WA Parliament House only the day before, inciting them to levels of violence, where he was quoted as saying, `These people down there do not see Richard Court keeping the law, so why should they?' Does your government endorse these words of Mr Tuckey? If not, what will the Prime Minister do to reprimand him for his appalling behaviour?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—On a point of order, Madam President: the questioner clearly reflected on the minister in suggesting that he had incited violence. An allegation of that description clearly ought to be withdrawn.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—An imputation of that sort ought not be made against a member of this chamber or a member of the other chamber. I would ask for that to be eliminated from the question.7483Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for the question. Certainly, I saw the public reports of violence in the forests in south-west Western Australia and I deplore violence of that kind. In fact, I deplore violence in any circumstances. In relation to Mr Tuckey, the reports I saw were that he had made the point that in fact the atmosphere was extremely heated. I cannot see how he can be condemned for bringing that to the attention of interested parties, in particular the authorities. I saw nothing that suggested that Mr Tuckey was in any way inciting that violence.We have made an effort to settle forest issues in a way that can give good conservation outcomes and provide resource security for the forest industry. We believe we have done so reasonably successfully in Tasmania and in Victoria. I think there is a further announcement being made on Victoria today. If it is made in the terms that I understand it will be, it will be further good news. We believe also that we achieved a good negotiated outcome in Western Australia. It was a disappointment to us that the management practices were subsequently unilaterally changed by the Western Australian government. But be that as it may, and notwithstanding the obvious disappointment of some parties in the heated environment, that in no way can justify violence. I certainly implore all those concerned to recognise that violence will never solve issues of this type or any other type and to work with the Western Australian government in a constructive and positive way in the implementation of the forest management processes they are adopting.7484Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: will he be calling upon Mr Tuckey to apologise for the provocative role that he played in this incident? Further, will the government accept any responsibility for and contribute towards the financial restitution of the damages incurred?7484Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I said to the honourable senator, what was reported and what I picked up of what Mr Tuckey said was not provocative. In fact, it was a statement of fact that the environment is extremely heated. You could applaud Mr Tuckey for drawing that to the attention of the parties. I cannot see how in any way you can blame Mr Tuckey for that heated circumstance. In relation to restitution, I cannot see how that should be the responsibility of this government.74847484Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister accept that what is at issue in relation to the government's administration of the $70 million FCHP Program is not the worthiness or otherwise of the 60 successful projects but the basis on which, on the eve of a federal election, the government chose to ignore the outcome of a rigorous and exhaustive assessment process in respect of 16 of the 60 successful projects? Does the minister accept that, where ministers choose to exercise their discretion in a way which is contrary to departmental advice, particularly in relation to discretionary grants programs, it is incumbent on ministers to explain why? Why won't the minister release the reasons why he and Senator Hill decided to fund 16 projects that did not meet the minimum benchmark that was recommended by their own departments?7484Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not sure where you start or finish pointing out the inadequacies and inaccuracies that Senator Faulkner wants to try and get up in the public arena on this issue. He chooses to say that the worthiness of these projects is not a major issue—in other words, $70 million worth of projects—and that `I do not really care at the end of the day whether they are good or bad projects; I just want to know that you have published reasons.' That is what the Labor Party say. In other words, they say, `We are not interested in outcomes.' That is what he is saying—`We are not interested in outcomes; we simply want to know as much as we can possibly get because we think there might be some political advantage to us.'Let us be perfectly plain about what Senator Faulkner is about in this exercise. He has just conceded that the merits of the projects are irrelevant. They were not to us; that is why we exercised our discretion. That is not the same as ignoring outcomes; it is the very opposite. We were at all times concerned to ensure the best outcomes. We did not ignore the advice we got; we took it into account. We did not act contrary to advice, any more than those opposite act contrary to advice when someone suggests you do something. We have given you a lot of free advice over the years; you are free to accept or reject that. Others might give you contrary advice. Your task is to choose. And that is exactly what we did.To say it is incumbent upon us to explain why is simply code for saying that the Labor Party are absolutely bankrupt—had no idea what they were going to run with this week. Because they think they have got one journalist in the press gallery who is interested in the subject, they think they might as well give it another run to disguise the fact that there really is not anything else around. The economy is in good shape. You are industrial relations bankrupt. You have no alternative policies, so you have to find something like this.We did not act contrary to anything; we did not have a set of minimum criteria which were not achieved. We simply got a points score put along projects, and we chose the best ones.7485Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Isn't it true that ministers agreed to the assessment guidelines and procedures that were developed by departments on 9 July 1998? If so, why did the minister and his colleague Senator Hill decide to overturn the process and ignore its outcomes in relation to 16, or more than 25 per cent, of the 60 successful projects? If the minister and you, Senator Alston, are so confident about your own counsel—that it is superior to that of the two departments concerned—in relation to the 16 projects, why don't you submit reasons—your reasons, the reasons of you and Senator Hill—for public scrutiny? Front up with the reasons for overturning your department's advice.7485Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—These are just more pejorative expressions, Madam President. `Overturning advice'? If, every time you made your own judgment, you were overturning departmental advice I suspect the department would not have been terribly impressed. They would have said, `We offer you this advice in good faith. Take it on board; accept it or reject it. Don't treat us as though somehow you are rejecting our advice, because you are not.'The question suggested that somehow there had been no guidelines or procedures which we had decided to overturn. Once again, we did not. We accepted the procedures. We followed them. We took the advice on board. We made our decisions and we have given reasons for them. You cannot do much more than that. When you have got nothing else to run on, you try and keep going over the same old ground. This must be about the fourth occasion. If you really want long running records, why don't you get up and apologise to the Baillieus? Let us get back to something that really does have a few legs.74857485Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question goes to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is any Australian money directly or indirectly going via the World Bank to the proposed diversion of the Xiangride River in Tibet for an irrigation project? I also ask, regarding the arrest of Mr Gabriel Lafitte, Australian citizen, in that area eight days ago, why the Australian government is allowing itself to be treated as a doormat by the Beijing authorities over this matter. Why is it that it took two days for the Australian authorities to learn of this arrest—and then only through the US Embassy? Why was no legal aid or representation available throughout the six days detention of Mr Lafitte? What protest has gone to Beijing about the abrogation of basic rights to any Australian citizen in a foreign country when they are placed under arrest? Finally, what information has the government got about the fate of Mr Tsering Dorje, who was translating to that party? (Time expired)7485Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not know if there is any Australian money going via the World Bank into the river diversion referred to by Senator Brown, so I will seek information on that and provide an answer as soon as possible.In relation to Mr Lafitte, the situation is quite to the contrary of what Senator Brown said. My information is that consular officials did in fact act quickly—firstly to seek details from the ministry of foreign affairs—as soon as they became aware that he had been detained, and that it was certainly in part as a result of their active representations that he was ultimately released and, we are pleased, is now back in Australia. I am told that the embassy pursued the matter vigorously and was granted telephone contact with Mr Lafitte, who confirmed the contents of a previous letter that he had written to Australian officials. I can go into that if Senator Brown requires it, but it repeated that he was being treated well and did not require direct contact. It seems to the government that its officials acted properly in the best interests of an Australian in these circumstances, and, as I said, I am pleased that he has now been released.In relation to those who were with him and who I understand are still detained, I do not know more than what is on the public record and I will see if the Australian government has been given any further information.7486Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask the minister again: is it true that the Chinese authorities did not inform the Australian embassy about Mr Lafitte's detention but that came via the US Embassy? Secondly, can the minister inform the Senate as to why Mr Peter Nugent, Liberal member from Victoria in the House of Representatives, who was in the city of Xining where Mr Lafitte was under detention, packed his bags and left Xining, even though he was part of a human rights delegation, before making contact with this detained Australian?7486Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I repeat the facts as I know them, that is, the Australian consular officials became aware on 18 August that Mr Lafitte had been detained and that they made active representations. Firstly, they received a letter from him on 20 August, only two days later, in which he said he was happy with the way in which he was being treated and was confident a satisfactory outcome was imminent and that he did not require direct contact with the embassy. They then were able to make telephone contact with him. He then confirmed the contents of the letter, and repeated that he was being well treated and did not require direct contact. As I said, we are pleased that he has now been released.74867486Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister recall that at the time he and his co-conspirator Senator Hill were only prepared to acknowledge 12—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, there appears to be some imputation in that that I think ought not to be included in your question.5K4Senator FAULKNER—If there is an imputation, I withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I would ask you to withdraw that.5K4Senator FAULKNER—If there is, I withdraw it, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—No; I ask you to withdraw it.5K4Senator FAULKNER—I do withdraw it. Can I ask the minister: does he recall that, at a time when he and Senator Hill were only prepared to acknowledge 12 projects which had got up on ministerial patronage rather than departmental assessment, his department provided the information that these 12 projects accounted for $11.7 million or 16.6 per cent of the $70.4 million available for the FCHP? Now that ministers have admitted that I was misled, and there were in fact 16 rather than 12 projects which they have elevated to the final 60, can the minister inform the Senate of the total value of these four additional projects?7486Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This is just another backdoor entry exercise. What Senator Faulkner is trying to do is to identify the 16 projects. It is correct to say that, on the information provided to us, we originally advised the Senate estimates committees, separately, that there were 12 such projects. We subsequently corrected that, when it was brought to our attention that the accurate number was 16. I do not think anyone has seriously questioned the basis on which that occurred. What Senator Faulkner has been trying to do for months—in a fairly desultory fashion, I must say, until I suppose he got a bit of a kick along from someone in the gallery who was prepared to be misled by his assertions—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Name him.LD4Senator ALSTON—I have previously.VW4HERRONSenator Herron—Him or her.LD4Senator ALSTON—No, him. What he is trying to do is simply to identify projects that he claims are shonky. If that is the view that he holds, then he is saying that 16 out of 60 projects are shonky. If that is the case, if Senator Faulkner is able to make that state ment—and he did not say that the process was; he said that the projects were—we have here an absolutely heaven-sent opportunity for Senator Faulkner to actually step up to the plate and tell us which of those 60 he regards as conceivably in the category of being shonky. He has not been able to point to one single project to date. They are all on the public record. They are all out there. You go and talk to some of your colleagues in whose electorates they were and are, and ask them what they think of them. Ask them if they could possibly have been the beneficiaries of shonky projects. The reason that the opposition have not been prepared to nominate any of the 60 is that they simply cannot.7487Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is the minister who is accountable to this parliament. It is the minister who should step up to the plate and name the 16 projects. I would like the minister to take on notice the question I have just asked, given that he apparently will not answer it. I would ask the minister to acknowledge that there could be no possible grounds for refusing to inform the Senate of the value of the four projects that were favoured by ministers, given that this information has previously been provided in relation to the other 12 such projects. I would ask the minister to take the question on notice, as he is unwilling or unable to provide an answer now, and to give the Senate an answer later on today.7487Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think there was much of a question in that. But Senator Faulkner certainly knows the value of the 60 projects—$70 million, all of them good value. All you have got to do—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on a point of order: there is a very clear question in there for Senator Alston, that is, if he does not know the value of the four extra projects, which he would not provide in answer to my original question, he should take it on notice and give it to the Senate later on today. That is the question: will he take it on notice and give that information to the Senate?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. LD4Senator ALSTON—Senator Faulkner clearly would like as much information as he can possibly get to misuse down the track. But if you are serious, if you have the opportunity to rethink that egregious mistake you made earlier and if you now realise in the cold, hard light of day that you should actually be concerned about outcomes and the quality of projects, then go away and have a look at all 60. I will give you at least 24 hours to do it. Go away and have a good look at them.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Name the 16.LD4Senator ALSTON—Talk to a few of your colleagues. See what you think of them. If you want any advice on them, we are more than happy to help you in that regard.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Name the 16.LD4Senator ALSTON—Then come back and tell us which ones you think are shonky.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are the one that is accountable.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It is not his job to ask me questions. It is his job to answer.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Faulkner!TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Madam President, I raise a point of order: under standing order 203(b), (d) and (e), Senator Faulkner should be pulled into line in one way or another. In terms of standing order 203(b) he is `guilty of disorderly conduct'; in the terms of (d), he is persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to the standing orders; and in terms of (e) he is persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair. He is now just starting to argue with you, Madam President. I urge you to take some action against Senator Faulkner for this unruly conduct that he continues to display in the Senate.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I raise a point of order, Madam President. Question time is a forum where non-government senators ask ministers questions. It is ministers who are required to answer questions, not members of the opposition. Senator Alston has been asked a range of questions which you ought to direct him to answer. We have, specifically in relation to this point of order, a situation where Senator Alston is on the ropes; he has been protected—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you are debating the issue—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am speaking to the point of order. We have spurious points of order being taken by, firstly, Senator Vanstone and, secondly, Senator Knowles, to waste time and to try to bat out a bit of time so Senator Alston cannot be asked questions by the opposition. We are going to keep going and we are going to keep asking questions, as we are entitled to. Madam President, I think you know it, and you ought to sit Senator Knowles down for such a spurious and outrageous breach of the standing orders and waste of the Senate's time.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Madam President, on the point of order, I just ask you to consider that Senator Faulkner's behaviour in response to a legitimate point of order raised by Senator Knowles is evidence in itself of the point of order that she raises. Consistently, after you have called him to order, he immediately repeats the interjection you have called him to order for as a way of demonstrating to you that he is not going to take any notice. Then a few minutes later you have to call him to order again. I ask you, Madam President, to go back over the record and look at the occasions when you have called him to order and seconds later he has, in deliberate defiance of your order, proceeded with his unruly behaviour. Taxpayers pay for all of this and they expect better.RF4COOKSenator Cook—On the point of order, Madam President, there is no point of order and you should swiftly rule both of the senators from the other side out of order, because all they are doing is trying to take the time of question time away from the opposition. So I will be brief. But in the consideration of doing that, Madam President, you should also be mindful that Senator Alston does not answer a single straight question and has not done so today; and that if this is the level of accountability from the government it is not surprising that the opposition will be very keen to pursue the government and make sure that it answers in this parliament to the Australian people on what is clearly a cover-up.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There has been considerable debate in these points of order. The minister must answer a question related to the subject matter of the question. He must be responsive to the question and he must respond in terms of his area of responsibility. I am not required to demand that he answer the question as the questioner wants it answered, but I am required to note these other factors. There have been considerable breaches of the standing orders this afternoon and I shall monitor carefully the behaviour of all senators.74887488Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Macdonald, Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That sort of behaviour of sledging and calling across the chamber is totally out of order.VJ4Senator WATSON—Madam President, the minister would be aware of today's announcement of Australian Bravery Decorations which again highlights the bravery and sacrifice of many Australians. As many of those mentioned are members of the fire, police and ambulance services, will the minister advise the Senate whether the government has any plans to recognise the contribution of Australia's permanent and volunteer emergency personnel in our national capital?7488Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I appreciate the question from Senator Watson, particularly in his role as the newly elected Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. That question particularly relates to the national capital. I think all senators would agree with me that there would not be many Australians who have not been touched by the good work, the courage and compassion of the emergency services workers in Australia. It is accordingly with a great deal of pleasure that I announce that the government has decided to establish a National Emergency Services Memorial in Canberra. It is an Australian characteristic that we help each other out in times of danger of natural disaster and that the people at the forefront of that help are usually our professional and volunteer services—firefighters, police men and women and ambulance officers. However, there has been no national place to commemorate their contribution and sometimes their sacrifice. The National Emergency Services Memorial will be on national land within the parliamentary triangle. The government is confident that the memorial will receive wide support from the Australian community as a fitting national focus for honouring the thousands of men and women who serve in our emergency services for the benefit of the wider community. The memorial will also provide a focus to commemorate those who have fallen or perished while carrying out their important duties to their fellow Australians.I am particularly pleased that the Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in the provision of a permanent recognition of the work the emergency services workers do. As Senator Watson has said in his question, the matter is particularly in our minds today with the announcement of the bravery decorations, a number of which have gone to professional and volunteer emergency services personnel. As well, we have been thinking in recent times of the young policemen who were cut down in the course of their duty. Not too long ago, we were mourning the loss of firefighters caught by bushfires while trying to protect the lives and property of other Australians.The government feels that it is fitting that a substantial memorial to honour their contribution is erected, and that that memorial recognise their contribution and the contribution made by other emergency services workers. I am pleased to advise the Senate that I have asked the National Capital Authority to conduct a design competition for the National Emergency Services Memorial. Leading Australian architects and sculptors will be asked to provide conceptual designs, as will members of the Australian community. I am sure that everyone in the Senate will agree that, as we approach the first 100 years of the Australian federation, it is fitting that a monument marking the enormous and valuable contribution of our emergency services workers be established in the centre of our national capital.74897489Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister recall defending his decision to fund 12 projects which had not met the 15-point assessment benchmark by stating that he took advice from not only the departments but also the National Council for the Centenary of Federation? Does he further recall that, when I asked his department how many of these 12 projects which had not been recommended by the department had in fact been recommended by the national council, I was told that there were only two? Can the minister inform the Senate how many of the additional four projects that we now know ministers gave a leg-up to had been recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation?7489Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If I am being asked what advice Senator Faulkner was given in the estimates committee process some months ago, then clearly I am not in a position to provide that advice today. But I can say that, in relation to the original advice in relation to 12 projects, there was an error of misunderstanding about the nature of the information that had been sought. At the time it was considered that Senator Faulkner had sought the number of funded projects that did not receive a high ranking in the departmental assessment, of which there were 12, and that continues to be the correct figure. On reviewing Hansard , it became clear that Senator Faulkner had actually sought the number of funded projects that received a rating in the departmental assessment of less than 15. The answer to that question was 16 projects, and that was made clear in the subsequent letter that was sent to the committee.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My question went to the issue of advice from the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. It went to advice that was given at estimates regarding the then supposed 12 projects. In relation to what is now 16 projects—an extra four—I am asking for the same information that I was keen to know in relation to the funding for those projects. It is a specific question; I think the minister should be directed to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister is responsive to the question that was asked, and he still has another three minutes if there are other matters that need to be dealt with.LD4Senator ALSTON—If I remember correctly, the question was: do I recall that sort of advice being given at the Senate estimates process? The answer is no.7490Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not surprised that Senator Alston dropped the ball; he probably was not concentrating at the time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question, Senator?5K4Senator FAULKNER—Given that the minister cannot even recall what happens at the Senate estimates when he is the minister at the table—what I would have thought is an amazing admission in question time today—could I now ask him to take the question on notice, given that he is not able to answer it or remember these events? Again, I ask the minister to acknowledge that there could be no possible grounds for refusing to provide this information to the Senate, given that it was previously provided in relation to the other 12 projects of the 16 which ministers have now admitted they selected in spite of their being ranked below the 15-point cut-off. He might check the record and he might also provide the Senate with an answer on this important information today.7490Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Once again we have this proposition that there was a 15-point cut-off, in other words, that it was simply not open to ministers to choose projects that were below that level. That is why you came to tell Mike Seccombe, presumably, that these had failed to met the minimum criteria. We have pointed that and a number of other serious inaccuracies out, but of course the letter has not been published.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The minister is again deliberately attempting not to answer this question. Given that he cannot even remember this information having been provided when he was a minister at the table, I have asked him to take the question on notice. I think the Senate is entitled to hear a commitment from the minister that he will do just that and come back to the Senate with this important information.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister is entitled to answer the supplementary question as he sees fit, as long as he is related to the subject matter and responsive to it.LD4Senator ALSTON—The question seems to be: what is the Senate entitled to? The Senate is entitled to hear Senator Faulkner's view on whether these projects deserve support or whether they do not, whether Senator Faulkner is now prepared to concede that he has made a number of fundamental inaccuracies and mis-statements about the process, and whether he understands that there was not a cut-off point and that there was simply advice given about the number of projects that happened to exceed 15 points out of a 24-point score, but at all times it was left to ministers to make their own decisions. That is really what the Senate is entitled to and the sooner the Senate gets that advice, the better. (Time expired)74907490Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that, under the ARPANSA legislation, a Radiation and Health Safety Advisory Council is established which has a community representative? Is it the case that both the National Environment Consultative Forum's nominees have been rejected—both nominees put forward by that forum have been rejected—by the Minister for Health and Aged Care? If so, could the minister provide reasons for the rejection of both nominees, and could the minister also confirm whether these are the only nominations received by the minister that have been rejected? 7491Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for the question. I do not have a brief in relation to ARPANSA, and I will take that to the minister and see if there is anything further that can be added. The radiation protection authority is an authority constituted for the purpose of overseeing radiation levels within the community and it is important that the Australian and New Zealand Food Council, for example, which is made up of the health ministers of the Commonwealth, states, territories and New Zealand, has considered and approved the standard of food irradiation.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—Madam President, I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. The minister has said that he does not have a brief on my particular question, so I would rather the minister got back to me in a period of time with an answer that actually addressed the specifics of the question.VW4Senator HERRON—On the point of order, Madam President: it is obvious that Senator Stott Despoja did not hear your answer to the point of order that was taken previously. The minister is required to answer the question, relevant to the material that has been provided and other information that may be to the purpose in the response. So it is quite appropriate that I should respond in that way. It is obvious from my answer that the other side have no idea what this question relates to, no idea whatsoever. But that does not surprise me. They have no policies and no ideas about anything.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, you are debating the matter. You have strayed from the point of order.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Madam President, on the point of order: Senator Herron was asked a specific question about ARPANSA, and particularly community representation on ARPANSA. Community representation on ARPANSA is specifically to deal with issues such as those surrounding the Lucas Heights reactor. I cannot understand how the minister can start talking about the New Zealand food authority as relevant to a question about ARPANSA which he has already admitted he does not have an answer to anyway. So he should just sit down, shut up and go and get the answer.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper .10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, in the normal course Senator Stott Despoja would be entitled to ask a supplementary question when the minister sat down. The minister has resumed his seat. Senator Stott Despoja.7491Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—As the minister has said that he will go away and find out the answer to this question, perhaps the minister could also, when talking to his ministerial colleague, find out whether or not it was the fact that these two nominees could not be relied upon to promote the government's expanding nuclear agenda that was the reason that they were actually rejected by the Minister for Health and Aged Care.7491Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—In response to the supplementary question, that is not what I said. In essence, I said that there was no brief here in relation to that and I would seek further information and return with it if I could. There were no aspersions being cast on anybody as regards who might or might not have been nominated to that committee, nor would Senator Stott Despoja expect that that sort of response would be given. So I repeat what I said previously.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous749110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating Senator Ross Lightfoot to act as a Temporary Chairman of Committees when the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees is absent.Questions Without Notice7491749115:03:007491Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Crowley asked me a question on 12 August in relation to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I have received a response from the minister and seek leave to have it incorporated.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—PITUITARY HORMONE INJECTIONS: COMPENSATIONSENATOR CROWLEY asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, without notice, on 12 August 1999: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?SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:In its response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's Report on the CJD Settlement Offer the Government agreed to provide up to a further $3 million to the Pituitary Hormones Trust Account for payments to hormone recipients who have, or have suffered, a recognised psychiatric injury due to their having been informed they are at a greater risk of contracting CJD. It has also been agreed the six children of the four female hormone recipients who have died of CJD can apply for a one-off payment.This funding is part of a $5.1 million package of measures to implement the Government's response to the Senate Committee's report which includes the establishment of an independent Advisory Board to assess applications for one-off payments for psychiatric illness, consideration of a longitudinal study of the health status of and further tracing of hormone recipients.The Government has appointment Ms Robyn Layton QC as Chair of the independent Pituitary Hormones Trust Account Advisory Board which is currently considering claims for one-off payments for psychiatric illness, and determining which applicants are to receive a one-off payment and the amount of the payments. The Government has also appointed two psychiatrists, nominated by the Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, as members of the Advisory Board.A Special Edition of the Human Pituitary Hormones (HPH) newsletter was published in December 1998 to inform hormone recipients of the process for applying for a one-off payment. The original deadline for applications was February of this year but this was extended to May to ensure that all recipients of human pituitary derived hormones who wished to apply for a payment could do so. By the deadline of May the Department received approximately 300 applications.The applicants have now all undergone a psychiatric assessment and the assessment reports are with the Advisory Board for its consideration. The Advisory Board aims to finalise its deliberations by the end of August and all applicants will receive advice of the outcome of their applications at that time.SENATOR CROWLEY: Madam President, I have a supplementary question. Are you aware, Minister, that in April Minister Wooldridge stated that he believed the definition 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?SENATOR HERRON: The Pituitary Hormones Trust Account Advisory Board regards the definition of psychiatric illness used in the Pituitary Hormones Trust Account Management and Administration Guidelines 1998 as including any psychiatric illness described in DSM-IV. For the purposes of the one-off payments psychiatric injury has been defined as "A recognised psychiatric illness that seriously impairs the mental functioning of a person, and is characterised by features which include but are not limited to; delusions, hallucinations, serious disorder of thought forms, severe disturbance of mood, sustained or repeated irrational behaviour." All assessing psychiatrists were contacted by the Department and advised that DSM-IV should be used when assessing a recipient. DSM-IV is one of the standard diagnostic reference works. DSM-IV does include conditions such as severe depression, post-traumatic trauma and stress.The application of the definition is entirely a matter for the Board, which is an independent body.As previously advised the independent Advisory Board is considering the applications it has received and will make a decision on which applicants are to receive a one-off ex-gratia payment and the amount of that payment. 749315:03:007493Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Crossin asked a question, also on 12 August, regarding pre-existing ailments and their consideration in relation to private health insurance. I have received an answer from the minister which I also seek leave to have incorporated.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—PRE-EXISTING AILMENTSSenator CROSSIN: 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?Senator CROSSIN —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?SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Following the Minister for Health and Aged Care's agreement to appoint three eminent people to conduct an inquiry that would review the operation of current pre-existing ailment rules for private health insurance, a letter was sent to several key organisations seeking nominations of candidates for appointment to the inquiry. Replies to this letter continued to arrive until early August. The Minister is now in the process of selecting candidates for appointment to the inquiry. Once this process is complete the inquiry can begin.With regard to the Courier-Mail article of 4 August 1999, the Minister has considered and rejected the proposed extensions of the waiting periods for pre-existing ailments. This decision was based on the Department's advice that at the present time health funds are not able to provide sufficiently detailed data to justify waiting period extensions for specific procedures such as knee and hip reconstructions. 749315:03:007493Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked by Senators O'Brien, Cook and Faulkner today, relating to the distribution of funds for the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects program.I want to briefly clarify what is at issue here in the Senate today. The fact that the caretaker conventions require decisions to be made in advance of an election campaign is not at issue. Decisions in relation to the FCHP program were made in advance of the campaign. In fact, the government made damn sure they were. But did the PM sign off on the $70 million over breakfast on the Sunday morning before jumping in the limo to go to Government House or perhaps in the limo on the way there? Whatever the case, he certainly made sure that the $70 million was in the bag literally a few minutes before he went into the election campaign.The most serious issue in relation to timing is the government's announcements in relation to the FCHP. The caretaker conventions state:It is desirable, if the decisions concern significant initiatives, that they be announced in advance of the caretaker period in order to avoid controversy.In announcing 32 of the 60 successful projects in the course of the campaign, the government blatantly ignored this injunction. The exercise of ministerial discretion in relation to the choice of successful grants is not at issue. We accept that, while ministers take advice from departments, they retain the final say. What is at issue is the refusal of Senators Hill and Alston to provide documented reasons for the exercise of discretion. Let us not forget that these are the very same people who cried foul when Ros Kelly refused to provide documented reasons for her exercise of ministerial discretion over the CCRSFP program. These are the people who pressed the Auditor-General to develop guidelines for discretionary grants programs. Those guidelines were ignored by Minister Hill and Minister Alston.The assessment followed by the department is not at issue, and it is important that this be understood. That assessment process was clearly developed with regard to the Auditor-General's guidelines. What is at issue is that ministers chose to ignore the outcome of the process. One hundred and fourteen projects were ranked at 15 or more points out of 24. We want to know—and under the Auditor-General's guidelines the ministers are obliged to tell us—why they chose 44 of these 114 as opposed to the other 70, why they chose to ignore nine of the 17 projects which were assessed at 19 points and above and why they chose 16 projects that did not even get to a ranking of 15 points. We argue that, where ministers choose to exercise their discretion, and particularly when this is done contrary to departmental advice, as in this case, their exercise of discretion must be justified and documented and it must be open to public scrutiny.Finally, the worthiness of the projects is not an issue. It is not the projects which are shonky, or at least we have no basis at this stage on which to conclude otherwise. It is the process in the ministerial office without any departmental officers present by which the 60 successful projects were chosen that is the shonk. Until the ministers concerned—that is, Senator Hill and Senator Alston—can produce reasons to back up their decisions and produce a paper trail to back up their decisions and address the real issues, rather than respond to non-issues or not respond at all, as we saw with Senator Alston in the chamber today, we are going to go on calling it a shonk.We want accountability. We want the reasons for this Federation Fund fiddle. We want the identity of the 16 projects about which the ministers believed they knew more than the departments. We want to know what projects they pulled out of their bottom drawers. We are going to go on demanding answers until we get them.15:08:007494Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate can say what he likes about the Federation Fund. The fund has worked remarkably well. It is such a great achievement by the coalition government to think it could implement a fund of that nature that had such a wide positive effect across Australia that I would have thought there would be applause from the other side. But evidently the other side is as hollow on this issue as it is on many other issues. The Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects program, otherwise known by the acronym FCHP, is absolutely administered in a most impeccable way. Senator Faulkner on the other side is saying, `We don't really know what's going on, but you tell us.' That is like saying that you are guilty until you are proven innocent.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about the Auditor-General's guidelines?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Thank you. I appreciate Senator Conroy interjecting. The Auditor-General did find that there was something radically wrong with the whiteboard system of the distribution of money, and the minister paid the price. But there is nothing wrong with the distribution of funds in this one; in fact it was an initiative of the government, which the other side opposed, that made the money available in the first place. I have to say that I am concerned when a socialist party—the major opposition party on the other side—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Pardon?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—the socialist party—does not support—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Ross!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy!WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Senator Conroy, yours is hardly a conservative party.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lightfoot, address the chair please and ignore Senator Conroy's interjections.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—He is absolutely incorrigible, Madam Deputy President. It is a worry when you have a socialist party that does not support an initiative of this kind which adds to the quality of rural and regional areas as well as the heritage value of urban areas. I thought it was one of those things that we would have bipartisan support on from both the major parties. I really thought that this was one of those rare occasions when we could have bipartisan support. Instead of that, you are bellyaching, carping and fishing—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Would you please address the chair.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I am addressing the chair, Madam Deputy President; I do not know what else I can do.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think you had better read what you have said.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—They are carping and they are bellyaching and they are on a fishing expedition to try and get us to say that it was somehow improper as to how this money was distributed.Senator Carr interjecting—Senator Conroy interjecting—WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Perhaps it is our fault that you did not have any country members in the areas where these places were and where this money was spent because you simply did not get anyone into parliament. Look at yourselves, please! This is a great initiative. It does give some credit to Australia, in which you share. Don't keep pursuing something as ideologically stupid as this is. You know as well as I do that, particularly with salt affected land reclamation and the planting of millions of trees throughout Australia, you could not possibly find anything wrong. Be honest with yourselves! It is a great program that you all should have embraced. You will not get a comparison between this and the appalling whiteboard episode. That is a different thing altogether. The Auditor-General found that was wrong and of course the particular senator paid the price.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Senator?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—The particular minister paid the price. You said initially that you had 16 problem areas and I think you amended that to 12.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It's the other way around. WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—In any case, what happened has been fully explained and I am not going to go through the questions.Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr!WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—My colleague spoke about departmental figures. You cannot not blame anyone, but that does not make the issue any less valid than it is. You bring these issues up, you know they are spurious, you envy what we do and you try and take it down because you know that the people of Australia embrace totally what this government is doing with respect to conservation. The Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects are commendable from any angle and the opposition should embrace those initiatives fully.15:13:007495Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I also rise to take note of the questions and answers given today on this issue. I would like to thank Senator Lightfoot for that entertaining but irrelevant defence of his government's position. What the government, including Senators Hill and Alston, have not told Senator Lightfoot is about the departmental submission to the ministers involved.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—Is it a submission?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I am about to read from an FOI document, so it is perfectly available to you—through you, Madam Deputy President—as well. It is available; it is on the public record. It starts off by stating:Purpose:To provide you with a list of highly rated cultural/heritage and heritage projects from which to select for funding under the FCHP.It goes on to say:As per the departmental assessment guidelines agreed by you—that is, the ministers—on 9 July 1998, the department's assessment process is now complete.It goes on to say:Using the agreed assessment procedure, all projects on this list scored 15 and above and also meet the specific heritage and cultural criteria outlined in the program guidelines. In these groups are 114 projects with a good range of project types and a wide geographic spread requesting a total of $262,967,096.In question time, Senators Alston and Hill stood up and said that there were no criteria and no guidelines. Why did the department write that they provided a list of 114? The Labor Party did not come up with the list of 114; the department did, based on the guidelines that Senators Hill and Alston agreed to. So the ministers have misled the parliament. They came before Senate estimates and misled the parliament in relation to Senator Faulkner's questions. They were then forced to come back with a letter some time later admitting that they had misled the parliament.Senator Lightfoot interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is the `12' and the `16', Senator Lightfoot. That is where the mistake was. Your ministers misled the parliament to start with, and then, during the election campaign, they leaked out all the successful projects. Did they tell the communities whose projects failed? During the election campaign, did they write and say, `We're sorry. You didn't get a grant'? They rushed to get the yeses out, but what about the noes? Nothing. Six weeks later the noes were told. Why did the nine projects that were rated by the government's departmental advice as `very high' fail? Why did the 16 projects which fell below the 15-point departmental target get up? They will not tell us. This is what the department referred to when they talked about the projects below 15 points. They said:. . . [they] did not compare well in terms of significance or community benefit to the highest ranked projects, or, answer concerns about the ability of the organisation to deliver the project on time and within budget and/or had ongoing viability problems.That is what the department said. The ones below 15 fall into that sort of category. That was from the department, Senator Lightfoot, not the Labor Party. This government has pulled out the marginal seats lists. Come clean! You were sitting there days before the election, and you wanted to do a bit of simple old-fashioned pork-barrelling. You went through the marginal Liberal seats—where you were under a bit of pressure from One Nation—and you slipped a few of them in.All we are saying is, if it is all aboveboard as you claim, put it on the record. Look at the FOI requests. What do you get under `lists of reasons'? The lists of reasons are blanked out. The lists of reasons for why the projects—all 60 of them—were approved have been blanked out. There is nothing in the FOI documents; they have not provided information. The question is why. The answer is obvious. This is blatant pork-barrelling and hypocrisy in extraordinary proportions from Senators Alston and Hill. Senators Alston and Hill are guilty of the most outrageous hypocrisy and should resign.15:18:007496Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—What we are seeing this afternoon is a trawling exercise carried out by a desperate opposition with no policies and no programs. They are trying to besmirch the names of two of the most successful ministers in the parliament. The poor old ALP over there have not got anything going for them, and so they have to sink down to these sorts of gutter tactics—trawling around looking for a bit of mud to throw. Senator Conroy is hanging his head in shame and leaving the chamber because he knows it is true.The process which was gone through to fund the Federation and Cultural Heritage Projects Program was very open and transparent. Applications were called for on 30 June 1998. The task group's assessment began on 13 July and was completed on 13 August. The National Council for the Centenary of Federation provided its advice to the ministers on 7 August. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts sent a minute to the ministers on 14 August, along with copies of all applications and the task group's evaluations. The ministers forwarded a list of their recommended projects to the Prime Minister on 27 August. A letter dated 30 August was sent to the ministers, advising them of the PM's approval. That is all pretty straightforward.Let us look at the criteria and process. There were 741 applications. The projects were evaluated by a task group made up of officers of DOCITA and the Department of the Environment and Heritage. The projects were judged against six criteria: significance, lasting nature, appropriateness for the Centenary of Federation, benefits to the broad community, good management capability, and partnerships in funding. The projects were scored. They were given four points for each of those six criteria, leading to a possible score of 24. Far from 16 projects not meeting the minimum criteria, in fact 60 projects were successful and eligible to be considered. The story which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 August, under the by-line of Mike Seccombe, was very wrong and very misleading. Whoever leaked the information to him should have checked it out first, because it was wrong.In making their final decisions, as well as taking into account the evaluations of the task group and the national council, the ministers took into account the need to fund a balance of cultural and heritage projects, a balance of projects in each state and territory, and a balance of projects in inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional areas. Ministers were not provided with a list of recommended projects; rather, they were provided with all the information so they could select worthwhile projects, taking these objectives into account. That is what they did. It is true that some of the projects were announced during the election campaign, but that is not a breach of the caretaker conventions.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Of course it is!4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Of course it is not. That is absolute nonsense, Senator Carr. You know it is not in breach. You are desperately picking up a little bit of mud and flinging it, but it is not going to stick because it is not a breach of the caretaker conventions which state that significant decisions should not be made during a campaign. These decisions were made before the caretaker period came into effect and were merely announced during the caretaker period.What we have here is a trawling exercise by an opposition which, when in government, did almost nothing for the environment and nothing for natural heritage—it failed to reverse land and water degradation, it failed to do anything about the decline in biodiversity and it failed to prevent the spread of weeds and of feral animals such as foxes, goats, cats and cane toads. It basically neglected both the environment and natural heritage.The money from the Building Better Cities program went to the cities because that is where the problems were. The money from the environmental programs has gone to the country areas and country electorates because that is where the problems are. I hope and pray that during the rest of this session the opposition will do a little bit better than it has done on this issue, trawling around, trying to make an issue out of nothing. (Time expired)15:23:007497Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—While the government refuses to explain why and how it came to hand-pick 16 projects out of the Federation Fund moneys and why it did so in breach of the clear criteria that it had established and agreed to with the department, the opposition will maintain its charges that this program was rorted. We are quite clearly seeing an attempt by this government to hide from public scrutiny a shameless use of public funds for quite clear electoral purposes. An attempt is being made by this government to hide the fact that 16 projects were hand-picked by government ministers in such a way as to allow for the maximum political impact in support of coalition marginal seats during the last election.This is a policy which this government has pursued quite clearly in total disregard for the long-held convention `that significant initiatives should be announced in advance of the caretaker period in order to avoid controversy'. That is the sentiment that is expressly stated in the caretaker conventions which have long been established within this parliament. This is quite clearly a breach by this government. The government has attempted to hide its contempt for the Auditor-General's guidelines.I further allege that this government has sought to circumvent an FOI request which would have allowed the parliament to get to the bottom of what is quite clearly a shonky grants process. What we have before us is the motivation of the government. Senators are entitled to ask questions about that. It is my contention that this government was under considerable pressure in the last election. It was quite prepared to use public resources at its disposal to pork-barrel its way out of trouble.In particular, we note that one of the ministers concerned with the administration of this program, Senator Alston, happened to be the campaign director for the Liberal Party in the state of Victoria. It was not above his consideration to have press conferences at the Liberal Party campaign headquarters at Nauru House in Melbourne. For instance, on 8 September 1998 he stated quite explicitly that the Liberal Party was in a very tight election and that all stops had to be pulled out to make sure that people understood the stark choices, and so on, before them. The stark choices to which he referred included the use of funds under the Federation Fund program. The transcript of that interview is publicly available.We have to understand the simple facts behind this matter. Mr Fischer blew the gaff on this government when he confirmed on ABC TV during its election night coverage that a lot of policy was in the pipeline and that specific projects are always held back for announcement during an election campaign. The simple facts are that, in the months leading up to the calling of the election on 30 August last year, government ministers approved $198 million in grants under the Natural Heritage Trust, $170 million in Federation Fund major project grants, and $70 million in Federation Fund Cultural and Heritage Projects—a total of $438 million. In the course of the election campaign itself, the government announced $198 million in grants under the Natural Heritage Trust, $317 million in Federation Fund major projects and $41 million in terms of the Federation Fund Cultural and Heritage Projects.It is quite apparent that there has been considerable political interference in the allocation of government moneys to the Federation Fund projects. It is quite apparent to us that secrecy surrounding why the decisions were made and the failure of the government to release publicly the documentation which it alleged it sent to the department indicates that the government has a considerable amount to hide in this regard. I ask the simple question: why should such secrecy surround the expenditure of such significant sums of money?Some 16—or more than 25 per cent—of the 60 successful projects in the cultural fund were chosen by ministers who were obviously content to override departmental advice and to contravene the Auditor-General's guidelines in pursuit of votes. Quite clearly, that is the criterion that was primarily in their minds when it came to the allocation of moneys for this project. The department presented a list of 114 projects and 16 of these projects were below the cut-off line. (Time expired)15:28:007498Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—We are taking note of answers to questions that were raised in the Senate this afternoon. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that many of the questions and the matters that arose during question time actually challenged the authority of the chair. I think it is unfortunate when the position of the chair is not respected. That is a matter that all sides of this parliament should acknowledge.There were great inconsistencies between the presentation that we have just heard from Senator Carr and the earlier contribution by his leader, Senator Faulkner. They were completely divergent approaches to the same issue. In fact, Senator Carr, if you read the transcript of what Senator Faulkner said, you will see that he did not actually take issue with the question of the announcement during the election campaign; whereas, you did and you put a lot of store on that. Where is the consistency in your approach to answering this question and the approach of Senator Faulkner, who took a completely different tack? He was concerned about certain aspects of the process, but he actually said that the announcement during the election campaign was not the issue. On the other hand, Senator Carr, you attempted to make it the issue, and I think you erred in that respect.If I may follow the issue raised by Senator Eggleston, some projects were of course announced in the campaign. That was not in breach of the caretaker conventions which state that significant decisions should not be made—with the emphasis on `made'—during a campaign. The point that I wish to emphasise is that the decisions were actually made before the caretaker period came into effect and were merely announced during the caretaker period. There is the big inconsistency, I submit, between what your leader articulated to the Senate and what you took offence to, Senator Carr. I think on this occasion, on this particular issue, I must defer to the side of your esteemed leader.The Labor Party has attempted to make an issue of this by claiming that decisions were taken in response to vulnerable seats and vulnerable areas, et cetera. Senator Mackay and other Tasmanian senators are in the chamber at present. I would just like to mention that Tasmania has actually benefited from six of these particular projects. The Launceston Railway Workshop Museum was a concept that was originally started by, I think, Lance Barnard many years ago. It would certainly have been a retrograde step had we not built on that development at the Inveresk railway yards. True, we built on that. The foundation was good, and I think it is going to be a centre of great cultural and heritage significance well into the future. If we had not spent money—a modest sum—in that area, I think you would have attacked us for not looking after proper heritage issues.Another project in your home town, Senator Mackay, is the historic Female Factory in Hobart. This $0.975 million project certainly was not in a Liberal held seat at the time and nor is it now—again completely refuting all of your arguments. Then we move to the electorate of Lyons in respect of which Dick Adams was the incumbent at the time. An amount of $0.7 million was spent in the central midlands. Then there is the Devonport cultural heritage project. As we know, parts of Devonport are in Lyons and parts of it are in Braddon. Again, I do not know that you could say that there was any particular advantage in that area.The Clarendon Homestead project is in Dick Adams's electorate of Lyons—hardly a bias towards the Liberal Party. So this is a whole lot of bunkum that you are going on with, particularly in the state of Tasmania where we also have the school of fine furniture. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.749910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:74991573DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or currently operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 1,573 citizens)749916DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of the sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 16 citizens)749917DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned call on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the current regulations relating to food content are retained by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority and that adequate food labelling is introduced which allows the Australian community to make a real choice when it comes to the purchase and consumption of food.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support legislation which will ensure that all processed food products sold in Australia be fully labelled. This labelling must include:all additivespercentage of ingredientsnutritional informationcountry of originfood derived from genetically engineered organisms.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 17 citizens)75006DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned call on the Federal Parliament to ensure that the Kosovo refugees entering Australia under the Temporary Safe Haven legislation will not be forced to leaved against their will.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from six citizens)750018TW4Bourne Sen VickiTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned recognises the vital role of a strong, comprehensive, independent and publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that:(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election promise, namely that `The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC' [at pre-1996 levels].(2) The Senate votes to maintain and strengthen the existing role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.(3) The Senate opposes any weakening of the Charter of the ABC.Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne(from 18 citizens)Petitions received.Notices7500750015:34:007500Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I now withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for the next day of sitting.7500The following notices were given:Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 26 August 1999, from 9.30 am to 11.30 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into Auditor-General's reports.Senator McKiernan to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Legal and Constitutional References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 26 August 1999, from 4.30 pm to 7.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program.Senator George Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 26 August 1999, from 6 pm, to take evidence from the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr John Broome, under the committee's statutory terms of reference.Senator Quirke to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, agreed to on 1 July 1998 and varied on 9 March 1999 and 11 August 1999, be further varied in accordance with this resolution.(2) The quorum of the committee be 2 members, with 1 member present being appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 1 appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.(3) The provision relating to the composition of any subcommittee be omitted.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the Senate not meet on Wednesday, 1 December nor Thursday, 2 December 1999.(2) That legislation committee hearings on the 1999-2000 supplementary budget estimates be scheduled as follows: Wednesday, 1 December and, if required, Friday, 3 December (Group A); and Thursday, 2 December and, if required, Friday, 3 December (Group B).(3) That the committees meet in accordance with the groupings agreed to on 26 November 1998. Senator Harris to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that proportional representation shall be the method of choosing senators, and for related purposes. Constitution Alteration (Proportional Representation in the Senate) 1999 .Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate censures the Minister for Forestry and Conservation (Mr Tuckey) for inflaming rather than mitigating the conflict over Western Australia's Regional Forest Agreement.Leave of Absence7501Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Denman for the period 23 August to 26 August inclusive on account of illness and to Senator Murphy for the period 23 August to 2 September inclusive on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.Notices75017501Items of business were postponed as follows: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 25 August 1999.General business notice of motion no. 256 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the introduction of the Convention on Climate Change Implementation Bill 1999, postponed till 31 August 1999.Committees750175017501Motion (by Senator Mackay)—as amended, by leave—put:That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in November 1999:The development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan for the future con struction 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.15:41:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Forshaw, M. G. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harris, L.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. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bourne, V. Payne, M. A.Denman, K. J. Parer, W. R.Faulkner, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C.Gibbs, B. Crane, W.Murphy, S. M. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.75027502Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous75027502Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 260 standing in the name of Senator Murphy be postponed to 20 September.Documents750275027502The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—On behalf of the President, I present the publication Business of the Senate 1901-1906. Senators would be aware that the Senate Table Office has issued Business of the Senate twice a year, with an annual cumulation, since 1970. In recent months the department has prepared, as a commemoration of federation project, a Business of the Senate for the years 1901 to 1906. This publication provides data on the first six years of the Senate in a format closely modelled on that of the more recently published Business of the Senate in order to facilitate comparisons. Further volumes are expected to follow as additional research is undertaken.Ordered that the document be printed.7502750210000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 8 of 1999-2000—Performance Audit—Managing Data Privacy in Centrelink.15:48:007502O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees75027502750215:48:007502O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present report No. 23 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Amendments proposed to the International Whaling Convention , together with submissions, Hansard record of proceedings and minutes.Ordered that the report be printed.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The report I have just tabled is the fourth examination of amendments proposed to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 , by the Treaties Committee since it was established in 1996.Each year since 1949, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has met to review the Schedule which has been amended to reflect the considerable changes, in technology and other areas, that have occurred since the Convention was signed in 1946. The two sets of proposed amendments to the Schedule arose from the 51st Annual Meeting of the IWC, held in Grenada in May 1999.The first set proposed to alter dates in the Schedule to this Convention to renew the moratorium on commercial whaling, introduced in 1986. As on the three past occasions, these proposed changes were supported by the Committee.The other set of proposed amendments was more controversial. It dealt with the renewal of a quota for aboriginal subsistence whaling.In spite of the moratorium on commercial whaling, in certain circumstances the IWC allows the taking of whales, notably under its aboriginal subsistence whaling provisions.There are records of this whaling occurring as early as 1500BC. It has been recognised by international treaties for 60 years as being in some way different to, and having a distinctive character and thus susceptible to other controls for, commercial whaling.Since the early 1970s, the IWC has strengthened its conservation policy by putting new management procedures in place. Agreed definitions, management principles and guidelines were adopted in the early 1980s for this category of whaling, and broad management objectives were also adopted.While there is a range of definitions in the Convention and in the Schedule, it is not complete. The agreed definitions of `aboriginal subsistence whaling', `local aboriginal consumption', `subsistence catches and `subsistence use of whale products' do not form part of either document. Nor are terms such as `aboriginal, `culture' or `subsistence' defined. Finally, there are no formal, defined links between aboriginal subsistence whaling and traditional methods of killing.This is a difficult area that demands a sensitive approach. The Alaskan Eskimos clearly fall within the IWC's guidelines and have one of the five quotas currently allowed for aboriginal subsistence whaling. Without allocating quotas to particular groups of aboriginal people, paragraph 13(b) of the Schedule allocates yearly catch limits from particular stocks of whales.Since 1987, the Bequian people of St Vincent and The Grenadines have been allocated a quota of three and then two humpback whales, provided that the meat and products of such whales are used exclusively for local consumption. The Schedule forbids taking or killing suckling calves or female whales accompanied by calves.We do not believe that the quota for the Bequian people has ever been sufficiently justified. Demonstration of cultural and nutritional needs is at the heart of aboriginal subsistence whaling. The Bequians have produced what was essentially a history of whaling in their area as a justification for their quota. They do not have the history of whaling for cultural and tradition reasons other peoples can and have provided.For some time, evidently, there was support for this quota because all their whaling was done by one old man and it was said the practice would die out with him. It now appears that he has been succeeded by his nephew.The Bequians have not been able to provide the sort of detailed needs statement of their need that should be required for the allocation of an aboriginal subsistence whaling quota. We see this as a deficiency in the IWC's approach: other peoples with a history of whaling could use the Bequian precedent to seek status as aboriginal subsistence whalers. In such a way could the moratorium on commercial whaling be weakened.Although decisions within the IWC are reached by consensus, there seem to be several voting groups within the IWC. Australia is seen by some observers as one of the more conservation-minded nations. Other nations, such as Japan and Norway, are seen by some other members to use the Convention's provisions to take whales.Japan uses the provisions of Article VIII of the Convention to issue special permits for `scientific' whaling. Norway submitted an objection to the moratorium under Article V and has continued commercial whaling. Some nations see these provision as loopholes in the Convention that could be used as means to allow full scale resumption of commercial whaling.The 52nd Annual Meeting of the IWC will be held in Adelaide in June-July 2000. The Committee believes that this is an opportunity to revise the Convention and its Schedule. We believe that there are real difficulties in the continued smooth operation of these documents. We see the meeting in 2000 as an opportunity to begin revising the Convention and its Schedule. Accordingly, we have recommended that the Australian Government should:. prepare a proposal for consideration at that meeting to revise the provisions of the Convention and its Schedule;. lodge an expression of concern about the renewal of the quota for the Bequian people, and indicate that this matter will be raised at the meeting in 2000;. request the IWC to obtain a detailed needs statement from the Bequian people for consideration at that meeting, but. should not lodge a formal objection to the renewal of the quota proposed by the second set of amendments. It would have been easy to have recommended lodging an objection to the renewal of this quota. We believe that an expression of concern, together with the other recommendations we have made, will be more effective.Finally, we acknowledge that not all Parties within the IWC will welcome our proposal to revise the Convention and its Schedule. If it is accepted and does proceed, at some point it may be necessary to judge how far and how fast it should be pushed.Pro-whaling nations within the IWC are unlikely to permit the closure of what are seen as loopholes in the Convention. In any event, it would be foolish to allow a desire for reform to push some countries outside the IWC and its processes.I commend the Report to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous75047504750415:49:007504Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Brownhill, I present additional information received by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee relating to the budget estimates hearings for 1999-2000.Bills7504r829Billsr830Billsr828750415:49:007504Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Abetz, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and two associated bills, together with submissions.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees7504750475047504The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating a senator to be a participating member of a legislation committee.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Hogg be appointed a participating member of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee.Bills7504r886Billsr887Billsr855Billsr8467504Bills received from the House of Representatives.15:50:007504Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have two of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.750515:51:007505Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—THE SUPERANNUATION (UNCLAIMED MONEY AND LOST MEMBERS) BILL 1999The Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999 (the bill) establishes a scheme for ensuring that superannuation members who have lost contact with their fund have a comprehensive register to check where their superannuation is held. The bill will overcome deficiencies in existing provisions relating to unclaimed money and lost members.With the increased superannuation coverage brought about by the superannuation guarantee arrangements introduced in 1992, many casual and itinerant workers (eg. farm and mining labourers) and those with broken employment patterns became `lost' members in that they lost the paperwork associated with their account, were never given the paperwork because they terminated employment before their superannuation guarantee contributions were made or lost contact with their fund in other circumstances.The bill will particularly benefit employees who have changed jobs regularly, who have moved interstate or overseas and who have multiple superannuation accounts.The bill formalises the Commissioner of Taxation's administration of unclaimed superannuation money and the details of lost members. This recognises the experience and efficiencies that the Australian Taxation Office has in system administration.The bill also has a number of other important objectives. The bill:. provides for greater co-operation between the Commonwealth, States and Territories in reuniting members with their superannuation;. extends the use of the tax file numbers (TFNs) to lost members and unclaimed superannuation money held by the States and Territories consistent with the use of TFNs in other parts of the superannuation industry (eg. superannuation funds and unclaimed superannuation money held by the Commonwealth); and. ensures consistent taxation treatment of unclaimed superannuation money held by the States and Territories.The bill will result in a small unquantifiable increase in revenue due to the application of consistent taxation treatment to unclaimed superannuation money held by the States and Territories. The bill will also lead to a substantial reduction in administration costs for the Commonwealth, States and Territories as a consequence of provisions facilitating greater co-operation between stakeholders and by extending the use of TFNs to lost members and unclaimed superannuation money held by the States and Territories.The bill has a minimal compliance cost impact.Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.SUPERANNUATION (UNCLAIMED MONEY AND LOST MEMBERS) CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL BILL 1999The Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999 makes consequential and transitional amendments to Commonwealth legislation as a result of the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999.Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill.MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Ministers of State Act 1952 prescribes the maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries to Ministers. Amendments to this act are therefore required from time to time to cover changes in the level of ministerial salaries or the number of Ministers.The sum was increased to 1.64 million dollars for the 1995-96 financial year to meet increases in salaries for Ministers under the previous Government, and was reduced by this Government to 1.6 million dollars for future years. At the time it was noted that, had the previous Government remained in office, it would have been necessary to increase the annual sum appropriated to 1.78 million dollars.The size of the Ministry has been increased from 28 to 30 since 1996, but the salaries of Ministers not in Cabinet have remained significantly lower than the salaries of Cabinet Ministers. The present modest increase in the annual sum has been necessitated by the increase in the number of Cabinet Ministers from 16 to 17 in October 1998.AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1999The bill amends the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 by removing the requirement that the Commission ensure an outcome in relation to environmental and social impacts over which it has no power. This requirement is replaced with one that will ensure that the Commission maintains its involvement in social and environmental issues, but at a level appropriate to its powers in these areas.The principal objectives of the Australian Tourist Commission are set out in Section 6 of the act. They are (a) to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas; (b) to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors; and (c) to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.The Australian Tourist Commission works effectively as an international marketer of Australian tourism to meet its first two objects. The Commission does not have the power or capability to meet its third object, as has been pointed out by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Australian National Audit Office, to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism. While the Commission undertakes a number of activities aimed at protecting the environment and society from adverse impacts of international tourism, these measures could not be considered sufficient to "ensure" protection.This has presented the Commission with a number of reporting and accountability problems.The Australian National Audit Office indicated in its 1997/98 Review "Aspects of Corporate Governance; The Australian Tourist Commission" that the Commission was unable to demonstrate that it was fully meeting all of its statutory objects, particularly the object relating to ensuring the protection of Australia from adverse environmental and social impacts. Additionally, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, in its Review of Auditor-General's Reports 1997-98, has recommended that the Commission should propose to its Minister that this statutory object should be amended to clarify the Commission's role.The proposed amendment will allow the Commission to meet its statutory objects without removing its social and environmental responsibilities. There will be no additional expenditure by the Commonwealth as a result of this bill.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 and the Australian Sports Commission Amendment Bill 1999 be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills7506Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the following bills without amendment: Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 Bills7506r7547506Message received from the House of Representatives returning the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 , notifying the Senate that the House has made the amendments requested by the Senate, and has also made further amendments in which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.Ordered that the message be considered in committee of the whole immediately.House of Representatives message—Schedule of the amendments made by the House of Representatives:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 20), insert: Part 1A deals with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations.(2) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add: Schedule 2 contains a copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations. (3) Clause 5, page 6 (line 6), omit "; and", substitute ".".(4) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (d).(5) Page 9 (after line 6), after Part 1, insert:Part 1A—Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations9A Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations (1) A copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations is set out in Schedule 2. (2) It is the intention of the Commonwealth to comply with, and give effect to, the agreement.(6) Clause 10, page 10 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) In particular, but without limiting subsection (1), a Minister may only make a determination under the GST Act, or the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999 , that affects the GST base if the determination is made in accordance with a procedure to which all of the States have agreed.(7) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add: (2) A change is of an administrative nature only if the change is necessary to: (a) maintain the integrity of the GST base; or (b) prevent tax avoidance.(8) Schedule 1, page 18 (line 1), omit "a loan", substitute "an amount".(9) Schedule 1, page 18 (line 14), omit "of the loan".(10) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 18), insert: (5A) The Treasurer may determine, in writing, that the whole or a part of the amount to which a State is entitled under subclause (5) is a grant. If the Treasurer makes such a determination, the remainder of the amount (if any) is a loan. If the Treasurer does not make a determination, the whole of the amount is a loan.(11) Page 21 (after line 3), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 2—Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial RelationsNote: See section 9A.THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIATHE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALESTHE STATE OF VICTORIATHE STATE OF QUEENSLANDTHE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIATHE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIATHE STATE OF TASMANIATHE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY, ANDTHE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA WHEREAS (1) the Special Premiers' Conference on 13 November 1998 developed principles for the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations; (2) the Commonwealth, States and Territories are in agreement that the current financial relationship between levels of government must be reformed to facilitate a stronger and more productive federal system for the new millennium; (3) while a majority of the States and Territories support the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the agreement of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania to the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations does not imply their in-principle endorsement of the GST; (4) an Agreement was reached between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories on the reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations on 9 April 1999; (5) this revised Agreement was made necessary by the changes to the Commonwealth Government's A New Tax System (ANTS) package announced by the Prime Minister on 28 May 1999; and (6) this revised Agreement supersedes the previous Agreement of 9 April 1999: IT IS HEREBY AGREED:PART 1—PRELIMINARYCommencement Clause1. This Agreement will commence between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories on 1 July 1999 unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.Objectives2. The objectives of the reforms set down in this agreement include: (i) the achievement of a new national tax system, including the elimination of a number of existing inefficient taxes which are impeding economic activity; (ii) the provision to State and Territory Governments of revenue from a more robust tax base that can be expected to grow over time; and (iii) an improvement in the financial position of all State and Territory Governments, once the transitional changes have been completed, relative to that which would have existed had the current arrangements continued.3. All Parties to the Agreement acknowledge the need to pursue on-going reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations.Acknowledgment of Agreement 4. The Commonwealth will attach the Agreement as a schedule to the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 . The Commonwealth will use its best endeavours to ensure the Act will require compliance with the Agreement. The States and Territories will attach the Agreement as a schedule to relevant State and Territory legislation. The States and Territories will use their best endeavours to ensure their legislation will require compliance with the Agreement.PART 2—COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL REFORMReform Measures5. The Parties will undertake all necessary steps to have appropriate legislation enacted to give effect to the following reform measures. (i) The Commonwealth will legislate to provide all of the revenue from the GST to the States and Territories and will legislate to maintain the rate and base of the GST in accordance with this Agreement. (ii) The Commonwealth will cease to apply the Wholesale Sales Tax from 1 July 2000 and will not reintroduce it or a similar tax in the future. (iii) The temporary arrangements for the taxation of petrol, liquor and tobacco under the safety net arrangements announced by the Commonwealth on 6 August 1997 will cease on 1 July 2000. (iv) The payment of Financial Assistance Grants will cease on 1 July 2000. (v) The Commonwealth will continue to provide Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs) to the States and Territories and has no intention of cutting aggregate SPPs as part of the reform process set out in this Agreement, consistent with the objective of the State and Territory Governments being financially better off under the new arrangements. (vi) The States and Territories will cease to apply the taxes referred to in Appendix A from the dates outlined below and will not reintroduce them or similar taxes in the future. • Bed taxes, from 1 July 2000; • Financial Institutions Duty, from 1 July 2001; • Stamp duties on quoted marketable securities from 1 July 2001; • Debits tax by 1 July 2005, subject to review by the Ministerial Council; (vii) The Ministerial Council will by 2005 review the need for retention of stamp duty on non-residential conveyances; leases; mortgages, debentures, bonds and other loan securities; credit arrangements, instalment purchase arrangements and rental arrangements; and on cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes; and unquoted marketable securities. (viii) The States and Territories will adjust their gambling tax arrangements to take account of the impact of the GST on gambling operators. (ix) Following negotiations under the CSHA, the States and Territories will ensure that increases in pensions and allowances specified in the tax reform package will not flow through to increased public housing rents where these rents are linked to the level of pensions. (x) Nothing in this clause will prevent any Party from introducing anti-avoidance measures that are reasonably necessary to protect its remaining tax base or liabilities accrued prior to the date the tax ceases to apply.GST LegislationAll Parties agree to reconsider this Agreement should the Commonwealth Parliament pass the GST legislation in a way that significantly affects this Agreement.Distribution of GST Revenue7. The Commonwealth will make GST revenue grants to the States and Territories equivalent to the revenue from the GST subject to the arrangements in this Agreement. GST revenue grants will be freely available for use by the States and Territories for any purpose.8. The Commonwealth will distribute GST revenue grants among the States and Territories in accordance with horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) principles subject to the transitional arrangements set out below and other relevant provisions of this Agreement.9. Details of the payment arrangements are contained in Appendix B to this Agreement.Transitional Arrangements10. In each of the transitional years following the introduction of the GST, the Commonwealth guarantees that the budgetary position of each individual State and Territory will be no worse off than it would have been had the reforms set out in this Agreement not been implemented.11. The Commonwealth will extend the transitional period by Regulation (as provided for in the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 ) to give effect to the commitments in clause 10 in the event that transitional assistance is required by any State or Territory after 30 June 2003.12. To meet this guarantee, the Commonwealth will make transitional assistance payments to each State and Territory, as necessary, over this period. These payments will take the form of interest free loans and grants in July 2000-01 and grants paid quarterly in subsequent years and will be freely available for use by the States and Territories for any purpose. Any payments or repayments made by way of loans or grants under the Commonwealth's guarantee will be excluded from assessments of per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC).13. The amounts of any additional assistance under the guarantee will be determined in accordance with the processes set out in Appendix C to this Agreement.14. After the second year following the introduction of the GST, GST revenue grants will be determined on the basis of HFE principles. That is, after the first two years, any State or Territory which is receiving more than would have been received under the current arrangements will retain that excess.First Home Owners Scheme15. To offset the impact of the introduction of a GST, the States and Territories will assist first homebuyers through the funding and administration of a new uniform First Home Owners Scheme.16. This assistance will be provided to first home owners consistent with Appendix D to this Agreement.Application of the GST to GovernmentThe Parties intend that the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local government and their statutory corporations and authorities will operate as if they were subject to the GST legislation. They will be entitled to register, will pay GST or make voluntary or notional payments where necessary and will be entitled to claim input tax credits in the same way as non-Government organisations. All such payments will be included in GST revenue.The Commonwealth will legislate to require the States and the Northern Territory to withhold from any local government authority being in breach of clause 17 a sum representing the amount of unpaid voluntary or notional GST payments. Amounts withheld will form part of the GST revenue pool. Detailed arrangements will be agreed by the Ministerial Council on advice from Heads of Treasuries.Government Taxes and Charges19. The Commonwealth, States and Territories agree that the GST does not apply to the payment of some taxes and compulsory charges.20. The Parties will agree a list of taxes and compulsory charges that are outside the scope of the GST. This list will be promulgated by a determination by the Commonwealth Treasurer as set out in Division 81-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act).21. In agreeing the list, the Commonwealth, States and Territories will have regard to the following principles: (i) taxes that are in the nature of a compulsory impost for general purposes and compulsory charges by the way of fines or penalties should not be subject to GST as these will not relate to any specific supply of goods or services; (ii) similarly, those regulatory charges that do not relate to particular goods or services should be outside the scope of the GST; and (iii) the inclusion of any other charge in the Commonwealth Treasurer's determination notwithstanding that it may relate to the supply of a particular good or service will require the unanimous agreement of the Commonwealth, States and Territories. 22. The agreed list of taxes and other compulsory charges that are outside the scope of the GST will be subject to on-going review and adjustment as necessary in consultation with the Ministerial Council. The Parties will notify any objections to changes to the list within a period to be specified by the Ministerial Council.Reciprocal Taxation23. Reciprocal taxation will be progressed on a revenue neutral basis, through the negotiation of a Reciprocal Taxation Agreement with the objectives of: (i) improving the transparency of tax arrangements between all levels of government; (ii) ensuring tax neutrality; and (iii) replacing the Statement of Policy Intent (SOPI) for the taxation treatment of Government Business Enterprises with tax arrangements which are broader in scope.24. It is the intention of the Parties to this Agreement that a National Tax Equivalent Regime (NTER) for income tax will be operational for State and Territory government business enterprises from 1 July 2000. It is also intended that the reciprocal application of other Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes will be subsequently implemented as soon as practicable.25. Local government organisations will be consulted with a view to making the NTER for income tax operational for wholly owned local government business enterprises from 1 July 2000 and including local government in the Reciprocal Tax Agreement at a later date.26. Where the application of full indirect reciprocal tax arrangements is prevented by the Constitution, jurisdictions have agreed to work cooperatively to introduce voluntary payment arrangements in these circumstances.27. All governments have agreed that no further compensation payments will be payable by any jurisdiction under the SOPI.Monitoring of Prices28. In accordance with the Trade Practices Act 1974 , as amended, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will formally monitor prices and take action against businesses that take pricing decisions in a manner inconsistent with tax reform.29. In order to ensure that these measures apply to the whole economy, the States and Territories will adopt the Schedule version of Part VB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Part XIAA of TheNew Tax System Price Exploitation Code ) to extend the measures in Part VB to cover those areas outside the Commonwealth's constitutional power. All Parties will work towards having any necessary legislation in place by 1 July 1999.30. The monitoring and prohibition on unreasonable pricing decisions will commence on 1 July 1999 and continue until 30 June 2002.PART 3—ADMINISTRATION OF THE GSTManagement of the GST Rate31. After the introduction of the GST, a proposal to vary the 10 per cent rate of the GST will require: (i) the unanimous support of the State and Territory Governments; (ii) the endorsement by the Commonwealth Government of the day; and (iii) the passage of relevant legislation by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.Management of the GST Base32. Subject to clauses 34, 35 and 36 of this Agreement, after the introduction of the GST, any proposal to vary the GST base will require: (i) the unanimous support of the State and Territory Governments; (ii) the endorsement by the Commonwealth Government of the day; and (iii) the passage of relevant legislation by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.33. All future changes to the GST base should be consistent with: (i) the maintenance of the integrity of the tax base; (ii) simplicity of administration; and (iii) minimising compliance costs for taxpayers.34. A proposal to vary the GST base by way of a Ministerial determination under the GST Act and the GST Transition Act will require the unanimous agreement of the Ministerial Council established under clause 40. The Ministerial Council will develop practical arrangements to ensure timely consideration of proposed Ministerial determinations.35. During the first 12 months following the implementation of the GST, the Commonwealth Government will retain the discretion to make changes unilaterally to the GST base where such changes: (i) are of an administrative nature (as defined in Appendix E to this Agreement); (ii) are necessary to facilitate the implementation of the new tax; and (iii) have regard to the need to protect the revenue of the States and Territories.36. From July 2001, changes to the GST base of an administrative nature (as defined in Appendix E) would require the majority support of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories.Australian Taxation Office 37. The States and Territories will compensate the Commonwealth for the agreed costs incurred by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in administering the GST.38. Accountability and performance arrangements will be established between the ATO and the State and Territory Governments consistent with Appendix F to this Agreement. These arrangements will include maximising compliance, cost efficiency, simplicity for taxpayers and administrative transparency.39. The ATO and State and Territory Governments will collaborate to explore options for the States and Territories to benefit from the use of the Australian Business Number system.PART 4—INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Establishment of Ministerial Council40. A Ministerial Council comprising the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories will be established from 1 July 1999 to oversee the operation of this Agreement.41. The membership of the Ministerial Council will comprise the Treasurer of the Commonwealth and the Treasurers of the States and Territories (or designated representatives).42. The functions of the Ministerial Council will include: (i) the oversight of the operation of the GST; (ii) the oversight and coordination of the implementation of this Agreement; (iii) the review of matters of operational significance raised through the GST Administration Sub-Committee; (iv) discussion of CGC recommendations regarding relativities prior to the Commonwealth Treasurer making a determination; (v) monitoring compliance with the conditions governing the provision of assist ance to first home owners set out in Appendix D to this Agreement; (vi) monitoring compliance with the Commonwealth's undertaking with respect to SPPs; (vii) considering reports of the GST Administration Sub-Committee on the performance of the ATO in GST administration; (viii) reviewing the operation of the Agreement over time and considering any amendments which may be proposed as a consequence of such review; (ix) making recommendations to the Commonwealth Treasurer on the Guaranteed Minimum Amount applying to each State and Territory under the Transitional Arrangements; (x) approving changes to the GST base which require the support of a majority of Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments; (xi) considering on-going reform of Commonwealth-State financial relations; and (xii) considering other matters covered in this Agreement.43. The Treasurer of the Commonwealth will convene the Ministerial Council in consultation with the other members of the Council not less than once each financial year. If the Commonwealth Treasurer receives a request from a member of the Council, he will consult with the other members concerning convening a meeting. The Treasurer of the Commonwealth will be the chair of the Council. The Council may also conduct its business by correspondence. 44. All questions arising in the Ministerial Council will be determined by unanimous agreement unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.45. While it is envisaged that the Ministerial Council will take decisions on most business arising from the operation of this Agreement, major issues will be referred by the Ministerial Council to Heads of Government for consideration, including under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments.46. The Ministerial Council will establish a GST Administration Sub-Committee comprised of Commonwealth, State and Territory officials to monitor the operation of the GST, make recommendations regarding possible changes to the GST base and rate and to monitor the ATO's performance in GST administration. The GST Administration Sub-Committee will function in accordance with the arrangements set out in Appendix E to this Agreement.SIGNED for and on behalf of the Parties by:The Honourable John Winston Howard,Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia,on the 20th day of June 1999The Honourable Robert John Carr,Premier of the State of New South Wales,on the 24th day of June 1999The Honourable Jeffrey Gibb Kennett,Premier of the State of Victoria,on the 26th day of June 1999The Honourable Peter Douglas Beattie,Premier of the State of Queensland,on the 25th day of June 1999The Honourable Richard Fairfax Court,Premier of the State of Western Australia,on the 29th day of June 1999The Honourable John Wayne Olsen,Premier of the State of South Australia,on the 25th day of June 1999The Honourable James Alexander Bacon,Premier of the State of Tasmania,on the 25th day of June 1999Kate Carnell,Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory,on the 22nd day of June 1999The Honourable Denis Gabriel Burke,Chief Minister of the Northern Territory of Australia,on the 22nd day of June 1999APPENDICESA: Taxes Subject to ReformB: Payment of GST Revenues to the States and TerritoriesC: Transitional ArrangementsD: First Home Owners SchemeE: GST AdministrationF: GST Administration Performance Agreement—Guiding PrinciplesAPPENDIX ATAXES SUBJECT TO REFORM The taxes which will cease to apply in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Agreement are set out below and in the relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory statutes as at 13 November 1998.A1. The following taxes will cease to apply from 1 July 2000: (i) Wholesale Sales Tax Sales tax levied on the value of the last wholesale sale of goods sold or otherwise dealt with as imposed by the Commonwealth's Sales Tax (Imposition) Acts . (ii) Bed Taxes Accommodation taxes levied on the cost of temporary residential accommodation.A2. The following State and Territory taxes will cease to apply from 1 July 2001: (i) Financial Institutions Duty Financial Institutions Duty levied on the value of receipts (credits) at financial institutions and on the average daily liabilities and/or investments of short term money market dealers. (ii) Stamp Duty on Marketable Securities Stamp duty levied on turnover (ie sale price times quantity traded) on the transfer of marketable securities quoted on the ASX or another recognised stock exchange. This excludes transfers of marketable securities in private companies and trusts, and in public companies and trusts where the securities are not quoted on the ASX or another recognised stock exchange.A3. The following State and Territory tax will cease to apply by 1 July 2005, subject to review by the Ministerial Council: (i) Debits Tax Debits tax levied on the value of withdrawals (debits) from accounts with financial institutions with cheque drawing facilities. Debits duty levied on transactions, including credit card transactions. This does not include stamp duty on electronic debits (refer A4 (v) below). A4. The Ministerial Council will by 2005 review the need for retention of stamp duties on the following:(i) Stamp Duty on Non-residential Conveyances Stamp duty levied on the value of conveyances other than residential property conveyances. (ii) Stamp Duty on Non-quotable Marketable Securities Stamp duty levied on transfers of marketable securities in private companies and trusts, and in public companies and trusts where the securities are not quoted on the ASX or another recognised stock exchange. (iii) Stamp Duty on Leases Stamp duty levied on the rental payable under tenancy agreements. (vi) Stamp Duty on Mortgages, Bonds, Debentures and Other Loan Securities Stamp duty levied on the value of a secured loan property. (v) Stamp Duty on Credit Arrangements, Instalment Purchase Arrangements and Rental Arrangements Stamp duty levied on the value of the loan under credit arrangements. Stamp duty levied on credit business in respect of loans made, discount transactions and credit arrangements. Stamp duty levied on the price of goods purchased under instalment purchase arrangements. Stamp duty levied on the rent paid in respect of the hire of goods, including consumer and producer goods. (vi) Stamp Duty on Cheques, Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Stamp duty levied on cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, or other types of payment orders, promises to pay or acknowledgment of debts, including duty on electronic debits.APPENDIX BPAYMENT OF GST REVENUES TO THE STATES AND TERRITORIESB1. Subject to the transitional arrangements and other relevant provisions in this Agreement, the Commonwealth will distribute GST revenue grants among the States and Territories in accordance with horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) principles.B2. The pool of funding to be distributed according to HFE principles in a financial year will comprise GST revenue grants and health care grants as defined under an Australian Health Care Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. A State or Territory's share of the pool will be based on its population share, adjusted by a relativity factor which embodies per capita financial needs based on recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The relativity factor for a State or Territory will be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer after he has consulted with each State and Territory.B3. The total amount of GST revenue to be provided to the States and Territories in a financial year will be defined as: (i) the sum of GST collections, voluntary and notional payments made by government bodies, and amounts withheld pursuant to clause 18; reduced by (ii) the amounts paid or applied under Division 35 of the GST Act and under section 39 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.B4. The total amount of GST revenue in a financial year will be determined by the Commissioner of Taxation in the following way: (i) actual outcomes for the items listed in paragraph B3 for the period 1 July to 31 May; plus (ii) estimated outcomes for the items listed in paragraph B3 for the month of June; plus (iii) an adjustment amount (which may be positive or negative) to account for any difference between the estimated and actual outcome for the items listed in paragraph B3 for the month of June in the previous year.B5. GST revenue grants will be paid by the Commonwealth on the twenty-seventh day of each month. Where the scheduled payment day is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the payment will be made on the next business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra.B6. The States and Territories shall be informed of the quantum of each monthly payment by close of business Canberra time on the twenty sixth day of each month. Where the day is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the States and Territories shall be informed of the quantum of the payment on the last business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra prior to payment day.B7. The distribution between the States and Territories of the payments of GST revenue grants up to 15 June in each year will be based on: (i) the Treasurer's determination of per capita relativities; (ii) the latest available Australian Bureau of Statistics' projections, or estimates, of State and Territory populations as at 31 December; (iii) the latest available Department of Health and Aged Care estimates of health care grants to be provided to a State or Territory; and (iv) the latest available estimates of the guaranteed minimum amount for each State and Territory to be calculated under Appendix C of this Agreement. The Commonwealth will inform the States and Territories of any changes to the estimates as part of the advice to be provided to the States and Territories under paragraph B6.B8. The payments of GST revenue grants after 15 June in each year will take into account the determinations of: (i) per capita relativities and Guaranteed Minimum Amounts by the Treasurer; (ii) populations by the Statistician; (iii) health care grants by the Minister administering the National Health Act 1953 ; and (iv) GST revenues by the Commissioner of Taxation. For this purpose, the final payment will be made no later than the seventeenth day of June in each year. Where the seventeenth day of June is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the payment will be made on the next business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra.B9. States shall be informed of the quantum of the final monthly payment of GST revenues grants by close of business Canberra time on the sixteenth day of June. Where the sixteenth day of June is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in Canberra, the Commonwealth shall inform the States of the quantum of the final payment on the last business day of the Reserve Bank of Australia in Canberra prior to the thirteenth.B10. The timing of payments of GST revenue grants may be varied by agreement between the Parties to this Agreement.APPENDIX CTRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTSGuarantee in LegislationC1. Commonwealth legislation will provide a State or Territory with an entitlement to an additional amount of funding from the Commonwealth to offset any shortfall between its entitlement to GST revenue grants and the total amount of funding which would ensure that the budgetary position of a State or Territory is not worse off during the transition period. (i) In 2000-01, transitional assistance will be provided to a State or Territory as a grant or an interest free loan to be repaid to the Commonwealth in full in 2001-02. (ii) In subsequent transitional years, transitional assistance will be provided to a State or Territory as a grant.Guaranteed Minimum AmountC2. The amount of a State or Territory's entitlement to transitional assistance in a financial year will be calculated by subtracting its entitlement to GST revenue grants from a "Guaranteed Minimum Amount" constructed in the following way: State revenues forgone: financial assistance grants, revenue replacement payments and State and Territory taxes as defined in Appendix A of this Agreement with the exception of stamp duties on marketable securities which will be the amount as if fully abolished. plus Reduced revenues: the amount by which States and Territories adjust gambling taxation arrangements to take account of the impact of the GST on gambling operators. plus Interest costs on cash flow shortfalls: the interest cost incurred by States and Territories as a result of the change to cash flows arising from the replacement of weekly financial assistance grants, revenue replacements and State and Territory taxes with monthly GST revenue grants. plus Loan Repayments: in 2001-02 only, the repayment of a guarantee loan by a State or Territory. plus Additional expenditures: payments to first home owners in accordance with Appendix D of this Agreement and the amount of the agreed GST administration costs payable to the ATO by a State or Territory. plus Other items: $338 million spread evenly over three years starting in 2000-01 in respect of the claim by States and Territories in relation to revenue forgone from the abolition of the Wholesale Sales Tax (WST) Tax Equivalent Regimes (with the distribution to be agreed among the States and Territories). minus Reduced expenditures: off-road diesel subsidies and reduced costs from the removal of embedded WST and excises on purchases by a State or Territory government. minus Growth dividend: the increase in revenue to a State or Territory (not including GST revenue payments) that is attributable to the impact of the Commonwealth's taxation reform measures on economic growth. plus Adjustments: from 2001-02, the net difference between preliminary estimates and outcomes or final estimates for items that were taken into account in the previous year's Guaranteed Minimum Amount. In addition, $269 million in total, spread evenly over three years, will be included in the new Commonwealth State Housing Agreement starting in 2000-01 in respect of the net increased public housing costs as a result of tax reform (with the distribution to be agreed among the States and Territories).Heads of Treasuries' Advice to Ministerial CouncilC3. The Guaranteed Minimum Amount for a State or Territory will be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer by 10 June of each year of the transition period. The Ministerial Council will make recommendations to the Treasurer on the Guaranteed Minimum Amount for each State and Territory.C4. The Heads of Treasuries will provide written advice to the Ministerial Council on the following issues by the indicated dates. (i) By 1 March 2000, advice on the estimated loans and grants to be provided to each State and Territory in 2000-01 and the amounts which the Commonwealth should provide to each State and Territory on Tuesday 4 July 2000. (ii) By 1 November 2000 advice on the most recent estimates of transitional assistance for the year and any adjustment that may need to be made to the amount of the loans and grants made to each State and Territory. (iii) By 1 September of each subsequent year of the transition period, advice on the most recent estimates of the transitional assistance to be provided to each State and Territory in the financial year and the instalment amounts which the Commonwealth should provide to each State and Territory on the first Tuesday of the following October and January. This advice should identify the adjustments for the net difference between preliminary estimates and outcomes or final estimates for items that were taken into account in the previous year's Guaranteed Minimum Amount for a State or Territory. (iv) By 1 March of each subsequent year of the transition period, advice on the most recent estimates of the transitional assistance to be provided to each State and Territory in both the current financial year and the next financial year, and the instalment amounts which the Commonwealth should provide to each State and Territory on the first Tuesday of the following April and July. (v) By 1 June of each year of the transition period, advice on the Guaranteed Minimum Amount for each State and Territory in the current financial year.Frequency and Amounts of Payments and RepaymentsC5. In each year of the transitional period after 2000-01, the Commonwealth will provide an instalment of the guarantee payment to a State or Territory on the first Tuesday (or the first business day thereafter) of January, April, July and October. The instalment amounts will reflect the advice to be provided to the Ministerial Council by the Heads of Treasuries under paragraph C4.C6. Adjustments to the total amount of additional assistance to a State or Territory in light of actual GST collections and the Treasurer's determination of the Guaranteed Minimum Amount will be made in conjunction with the payments of GST revenue grants after 10 June in each year.C7. A State or Territory will repay a loan which it receives from the Commonwealth in 2000-01 in quarterly instalments in 2001-02. These installments will be paid to the Commonwealth on the same day on which a State or Territory receives an amount of GST revenue grants in the months of July, October, January and April.C8. The methodology for calculating the amounts of particular components of the Guaranteed Minimum Amount for a State or Territory has been agreed by the Heads of Treasuries and is set out in the document titled Methodology for Estimation of Components of the Guaranteed Minimum Amount .APPENDIX DFIRST HOME OWNERS SCHEMEPrinciplesD1. The States and Territories will make legislative provision for the First Home Owners Scheme (FHOS) from 1 July 2000 which will incorporate programme criteria consistent with the following principles: (i) Eligible applicants will be entitled to $7,000 assistance (per application) on eligible homes under the FHOS. (ii) Assistance will be available directly as a one off payment. If the recipient expressly consents, it may be available as an offset against statutory levies and charges or some combination of these. (iii) Eligible applicants must be natural persons who are Australian citizens or permanent residents who are buying or building their first home in Australia. An applicant's spouse (or de facto) must be included on the application. (iv) To qualify for assistance, neither the applicant or the applicant's spouse (or de facto) must have previously owned a home, either jointly, separately or with some other person. (v) Entering into a binding contract or commencement of building in the case of owner builders, must have occurred on or after 1 July 2000. (vi) An eligible home will be a new or established house, home unit, flat or other type of self contained fixed dwelling that meets local planning standards. Fixed dwellings will include demountable dwellings where these meet local planning standards. (vii) An eligible home must be intended to be a principal place of residence and occupied within a reasonable period. The home must be located in the State or Territory in which the application is made. Applicants who have entered into a financing mechanism which involves a shared equity arrangement will be eligible. (viii) Assistance will not be means tested. (ix) The relevant State and Territory legislation will contain adequate administrative review and appeal mechanisms, along with provision to prevent abuse of the FHOS. The States and Territories will cooperate in the exchange of information to identify eligible first home owners.Other mattersD2. Funding of grants under the FHOS may not be drawn from Home Purchase Assistance (HPA) funds provided through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, including the pool of existing HPA revenues.D3. Further details concerning eligibility criteria consistent with the above principles are to be agreed between the Commonwealth and each State and Territory.D4. The States and Territories will not introduce or vary any taxes or charges associated with home purchase with the intention of offsetting the benefits of the FHOS for recipients.APPENDIX EGST ADMINISTRATIONE1. The Commissioner of Taxation has the general administration of the GST law.E2. The ATO will arrange for the Australian Customs Service to assist with the collection of the GST on imports.E3. During the first 12 months following the implementation of the GST, the Commonwealth will retain the discretion to make changes to the GST base of an administrative nature. For this purpose, changes of an administrative nature involves legislation necessary to: (i) protect the integrity of the GST base; or (ii) prevent tax avoidance.E4. The Commonwealth will include the definition of change of an administrative nature in the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 .E5. From July 2001, changes of an administrative nature as defined in E3 will require the majority support of the Commonwealth, States and Territories.E6. The GST Administration Sub-Committee, which will commence operation from 1 July 1999, will monitor the operation and administration of the GST and make recommendations regarding modifications to the GST and the administration of the GST.E7. The GST Administration Sub-Committee will comprise officials from each Party to the Agreement including representatives from the ATO as required. The Commonwealth Treasury will chair the GST Administration Sub-Committee.E8. The Chair will convene the GST Administration Sub-Committee in consultation with other members of the Sub-Committee as often as may be necessary to conduct its business. If the Chair receives a request from a member of the Sub-Committee, the Chair will consult with the other members concerning convening a meeting.E9. The functions of the Sub-Committee will include: (i) monitoring the performance of the ATO in the administration of the GST (Appendix F of this Agreement); (ii) the assessment of policy proposals for the modification of the GST rate and base; (iii) making recommendations to the Ministerial Council on the need for legislation which might significantly affect the GST base; and (iv) requesting the ATO to produce draft Public Rulings in specified areas.E10. The States and Territories will be consulted on draft Public Rulings prior to consideration by the ATO Rulings Panel and before public consultation. There will be a representative from the States and Territories on the ATO Rulings Panel in relation to GST matters.E11. Public rulings will not be referred to the Ministerial Council. However, the GST Administration Sub-Committee will refer a proposed GST change to the Ministerial Council for consideration if the Sub-Committee is of the view that the change could have a significant impact on GST revenues and so warrants Ministerial review.E12. Draft legislation which might significantly affect the GST base will be forwarded through the GST Administrative Sub-Committee to the Ministerial Council for consideration.APPENDIX FGST ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT—GUIDING PRINCIPLESPreambleF1. This Appendix outlines the principles that will guide the subsequent development of a GST Administration Performance Agreement (the Performance Agreement) between the ATO and its agents, and the States and Territories (the Parties).Objectives and Context of the Performance AgreementF2. The purpose of the Performance Agreement is to provide accountability between the ATO and the States and Territories on behalf of whom the GST revenue is being collected. It also provides an agreed basis for the GST Administration Sub-Committee to monitor the administration of the GST by the ATO and its agents in return for the agreed GST administration costs being paid by the States and Territories.F3. The Performance Agreement will reflect the commitment by the Parties to: (i) achieving world's best practice for GST administration in Australia; (ii) a cost-effective and transparent GST administration; and (iii) a cooperative relationship between the Parties.F4. The Performance Agreement will recognise that achievement of world's best practice GST administration, including cost-effectiveness, is dependent on the GST policy framework and integrated administrative design.F5. The Performance Agreement will be consistent with the arrangements set out in this Intergovernmental Agreement.Components of AgreementF6. The Performance Agreement will include outcomes to be achieved, budgeting arrangements and monitoring and review arrangements for the purposes of maintaining accountability and transparency of operations. The Performance Agreement will also include the process for raising matters of operational significance with the Ministerial Council.OutcomesF7. The Performance Agreement will stipulate performance outcomes and appropriate benchmarks to be achieved by the ATO. These outcomes may include, but are not limited to: revenue, taxpayer registration, compliance, reporting, education and legislative review. Consistent with the objectives of the Agreement, the benchmarks are to reflect world best practice in GST administration.Cost of AdministrationF8. The Performance Agreement will outline the Commonwealth administration activities that are GST related for the purposes of agreeing the GST administration costs.F9. The Performance Agreement will stipulate arrangements for an audit of GST costs and the systems for the control of GST costs.F10. The Performance Agreement will outline the process and timing of consultation for developing/modifying budgets and business plans for GST administration. These budgets and business plans will be developed, and/or revised, in an appropriate and timely manner so as to broadly accord with Commonwealth arrangements for funding agency operations.F11. The Performance Agreement will recognise that the States and Territories will fully compensate the Commonwealth for the agreed costs of administering the GST. Monitoring and ReviewF12. The Performance Agreement will stipulate the: (i) number and timing of formal reports by the ATO to the Sub-Committee; (ii) number and timing of progress reports by the ATO to the Sub-Committee; and (iii) arrangements for special briefings on particular issues.F13. The Parties to the Performance Agreement will ensure appropriate alignment of ATO Parliamentary reporting responsibilities and reporting responsibilities under the Performance Agreement.F14. The Performance Agreement will stipulate that ATO reports to the Sub-Committee on outcomes will include: (i) updates on relevant internal governance arrangements, including appropriate strategic plans and annual and other relevant reports that scrutinise aspects of GST operations (including annual and other relevant reports from the Australian National Audit Office); (ii) accrual-based financial reports; (iii) key outcome performance indicators (including, registrations, revenue, refunds, costs, key processing workloads, Taxpayer Charter standards and international benchmark comparisons); (iv) litigation and public ruling information; (v) updates on relevant compliance and cost-of-compliance research; (vi) administrative base issues; and (vii) commentary on administrative performance and any key emerging GST compliance issues and related initiatives.F15. The Performance Agreement will ensure that the States and Territories will have access to GST data held by the ATO subject to statutory limitations.Matters of Operational SignificanceF16. The Performance Agreement will outline arrangements for raising matters of operational significance with the Ministerial Council. Matters of operational significance may include disputes over the interpretation of the Performance Agreement and non-performance by the ATO against agreed targets. The Performance Agreement will ensure that the ATO will have the opportunity to provide direct advice to the Ministerial Council on any matters submitted to the Council. Development of AgreementF17. The Performance Agreement will be developed by the GST Administration Sub-Committee and representatives of the ATO. The Performance Agreement is to be developed with reference to both: (i) the guiding principles outlined in this Appendix; and (ii) actual GST performance data (including revenue) in the Australian context, gathered during the transitional years.F18. The Performance Agreement is to be finalised by the end of the GST transitional year ending June 2002. The Performance Agreement is to be endorsed by the Ministerial Council prior to being signed.F19. The Performance Agreement will stipulate the process for its amendment.Transitional ArrangementsF20. The ATO and the GST Administration Sub-Committee will discuss key operational issues and costs commencing in October 1999 and on a semiannual basis throughout the GST transitional year ending 30 June 2002.F21. The ATO will arrange for an audit of the systems for the control of GST costs and the GST costs incurred during the period from 1 July 1999 to the date of the signing of the Performance Agreement by the Parties.F22. The ATO will undertake to establish, by the end of the Transitional year ending 30 June 2002, final GST benchmarking arrangements with relevant overseas administrations, subject to their agreement. The ATO will discuss benchmarking plans with the GST Administration Sub-Committee.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the committee agrees to the further amendments made by the House of Representatives.15:53:007518Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I would like to make a few remarks about this legislation which is returned to the Senate due, I believe, to the incompetence of the government, in particular the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, who botched his own government's amendments in this place, thus necessitating further amend ments in the House which it is now up to the Senate to improve.For a package that was perfect and did not need any changes, it is interesting that in the first place we saw 128 amendments, including the now infamous million dollar handout to Crown Casino, which was fully supported by the Australian Democrats. We are still dealing with government amendments to the so-called `perfect package' on tax reform and we can be sure that this entire package of legislation will still need to be amended many more times in future. I fear that the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 is the first of many remedial bills to correct the errors that the government incurred in forcing through its earlier legislation.As we are well aware, the Senate has already dealt with hundreds of government amendments which were added to as a result of the deal done with the Australian Democrats. One thing for certain is, as I have said, that we will get many more such amendments in future. Incredibly, these amendments are a result of the government having to amend its own amendments because they were completely botched by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, during debate in this chamber. But that is not the end of it as these amendments will soon be followed by hundreds of regulations to give effect to the GST package.Only last week we saw proposed amendments to the GST treatment of the finance sector with respect to financial products. What is more, all these changes are to be implemented by regulation. One can only think that the government does not want to have to bring in another set of amendments and leave it to the hapless Senator Kemp to explain why the government got it wrong again. I say to the government in regard to making legislation by way of regulation that the opposition will be watching very carefully how the regulations are drafted and will not hesitate to raise issues that may be better dealt with by legislation as opposed to sneaking in regulations to cover up the government's incompetence.I turn to the so-called tax reform package. The GST package is, of course, not tax reform. It is an unfair tax change where families will face a new tax on almost everything they buy. We were told by the government that one of the key objectives of the package was to remove state taxes. That objective, by courtesy of this legislation, is now in tatters. What Australians will now face is a GST and most of the state taxes will remain as well. The financial institutions duty will remain for the first year of the GST. In addition, the debits tax on bank accounts will remain for at least five years. In reality, this could mean forever. The other taxes such as commercial property transfers have been confined to the never-never and, to paraphrase the Prime Minister's immortal misleading of the Australian people, these state taxes will never ever be removed.The Australian people know that the GST is not tax reform. Even the economic commentators admit that this package is not tax reform. For example, what did Terry McCrann—an economic pundit not known to have Labor sympathies—have to say on 9 June in Herald Sun? He said:Remember how this reform was going to sweep away a whole raft of supposedly inefficient state taxes? Apart from the taxes directly related to the GST, they mostly now stay.His conclusion was:The package is actually anti-reform.Those words, I remind the chamber, are from a most conservative political and economic commentator. Not only is the package not tax reform but it is actually anti-reform.Let me now go to the substance of the matters before us. The major amendments in this package of amendments to the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 —that is, numbers 1, 2, 5 and 11—concern the appending of the intergovernmental agreement to the legislation. Labor does not oppose these or any of the other proposals circulated by the government. I will reflect on the history of this agreement.There was an agreement that was reneged upon by the Prime Minister. He deliberately sold out the states when he made the infamous agreement with Senator Lees. The states were then forced to sign up to a third-rate deal. There was no consultation, simply an ultimatum from the Prime Minister. We do not have time to discuss the agreement in detail but I will make this point: the agreement lasts only as long as the Prime Minister and Treasurer decide it will. The Prime Minister's actions demonstrate that the GST can be varied without the involvement of the states, despite the government's rhetoric to the contrary.The other matter I wish to raise concerning these amendments is amendment No. 7. This amendment proposes that the GST base can be changed only in order to maintain the integrity of the GST base and prevent tax avoidance. That is pretty rich coming from a government which only six weeks ago massively wrecked the integrity of the tax base in its deal with the Democrats and simultaneously watered down the anti-avoidance provisions in the GST legislation. In effect, we have the government admitting that tax avoidance is possible yet it has purposely watered down the anti-avoidance provisions in the main bill to make it harder for the commissioner to prove avoidance. Where is the continuity in that?This should come as no surprise, as we know where this government's priorities have been—multibillion GST handouts to the high roller mates of Ron Walker and Lloyd Williams down at Crown Casino, plus weaker anti-avoidance provisions for tax avoiders, another favoured constituency of the Liberal Party. And all this was achieved with the support and the knowledge of the Australian Democrats. So we know where their priorities now lie too.In conclusion, the opposition support these amendments, but are getting mightily sick and tired of having to clean up the mess created by Senator Kemp and his failure to put through proper amendments in the first place.I also ask the minister, with respect to amendment No. 7, what constitutes a change of an `administrative nature' for the purposes of maintaining the integrity of the GST base or to prevent tax avoidance. Further, can the minister advise, as these amendments impact on the states, whether the states were consulted over the amendments, and, if so, what their response was? I conclude my remarks with those two questions and I look forward to the answers.16:01:007520Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In answer to that last question, there has been extensive consultation between the Commonwealth, states and territories in concluding the revised IGA. Leaders of each state and territory signed the revised IGA in June this year. This gives a clear indication that the states and territories fully supported the revised Commonwealth-state financial reform package.16:02:007520Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I asked two questions, and I thank the minister for attempting an answer to one of them, the last question, although, as I recall his remarks as he concluded his answer, they were `this gives an indication that' the states were agreeable to the change. With respect to that last question, I ask, specifically, whether the states consented to the change following consultation. I ask the question in those terms so as not to deduce from some action but rather ask whether there was a specific proactive `yes' following informed talks between the Commonwealth and the states. Then I remind the minister at the table that my other question related to amendment No. 7: what constitutes a change of an `administrative nature' for the purposes of maintaining the integrity of the GST base or to prevent tax avoidance?16:03:007520Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will take that last question first. During the 12 months following the implementation of the GST, the Commonwealth will retain the discretion to make changes of an administrative nature to the GST base. This relates to the question posed by Senator Cook: for this purpose, changes of an administrative nature involve legislation necessary to, firstly, protect the integrity of the GST base, or, secondly, prevent tax avoidance. In relation to whether the states consented, the answer to that is yes.16:04:007520Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—So changes of an administrative nature, if I understand the explanation, relate to the power of the Commonwealth to make legislation. Do I understand from that explanation that any changes under this heading `administrative nature' that the Commonwealth might wish to pursue will require further amendments?16:04:007521Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Before I answer that, I might just clarify the question. I understand Senator Cook to be asking why, if this is requiring legislation, it is termed `administrative', because you would say that if it was administrative you would not require legislation to change it. Is that the nub of the question or are you asking whether there will be amendments in the future?16:05:007521Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I thank the minister for seeking further clarification. My question in the first place was: what constitutes a change of an administrative nature? Minister, with great respect, I thought that, in reading your answer, you indicated to the chamber that changes of an administrative nature would involve legislative change. It was the words `legislative change' that caught my attention. That connotes in my mind that there would be some amendment.You have put the question in a different form. I would be interested in an answer to both forms of the question, because, clearly, the form that you have put it in suggests that it is hardly administrative if it involves amending the act. That does not look like administrative change, does not sound like administrative change, and probably is not administrative change.That is the curiosity in your answer. I understood your answer to say that administrative change means that there will be legislative change. I am really seeking clarification of that question.16:06:007521Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Yes, it does. I suppose the word `administrative' is used in the sense of administering the scheme of the GST, if you like, and not necessarily in the sense of a decision being made by a public official. I think we have to look at it in those two different senses. These administrative changes do require a legislative change and do equate to that.In relation to whether there would be further amendments, that is something which I cannot answer at this stage. You would need a crystal ball to do that. But certainly the purpose is that, if the integrity of the base needs to be protected or if there is some form of tax avoidance, amendments will be necessary.16:07:007521Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would like to ask the minister about the arrangements for the states withholding payments to local government where local government is in default of GST obligations. How does the minister envisage that withholding occurring, and is there the same obligation on the states? In other words, does the Commonwealth intend to withhold from the states revenue where the states appear to be in default of payment of GST, and what is the time limit on those payments?16:07:007521Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can advise Senator Brown that the withholding arrangements between the Commonwealth, states and territories are being negotiated at this point in time. It is not possible to say what will be withheld or if it will be withheld. The arrangements are currently being worked out.16:07:007521Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The legislation does say that the states will be required to withhold revenues from local government where local government is in default of paying its GST. So it is not a question of whether it will or will not happen. This legislation says it will. The question I am asking the minister is: how is that going to happen; what are the time limits applied; and is the same obligation going to be on the states—that they either pay up or have revenue withheld by the Commonwealth—and, if so, which revenue?16:08:007521Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will clarify the point I am making. It is more a question of how the withholding will be done. There is of course the provision that Senator Brown refers to, that there will be a withholding of funds if there is no GST paid. Local government will have that provision in relation to the legislation. The question of how it will be gone about is what is being worked out at the moment. Senator Brown asked a second part of the question. Perhaps he could just refresh my memory with that?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—The second part was: is there a similar arrangement for withholding revenues going from the Commonwealth to the states, where the states are in default of paying the GST? And, regarding the first part, what is the time limit—the limit of grace—given to local government to pay their GST before it will be required that state or territory governments withhold revenues from them?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—The situation with regard to the states and territories is somewhat different to local government. The states have actually locked themselves in to paying the GST. It has a concrete base to it—if you like—so that there is no anticipation that states will not be paying GST. That is part of the agreement. So that does not arise. That is the difference between the state and Commonwealth relationship versus the Commonwealth and local government relationship. I will just take instructions on the other question in relation to the time. I understand that the period of grace that you referred to is part of the arrangements that are being worked out.16:10:007522Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That is totally unsatisfactory. This is a pretty important matter. I could see some local government administration being in very deep financial problems over this, just the same as many small businesses will, I believe, be in problems over GST payments. I think the Senate ought to know what the period of grace is going to be and what the terms and conditions are going to be before we are asked to give our seal of approval to this process. Can the minister say whether, when the details are worked out and the period of grace is worked out, that will be by some form of regulation or disallowance which the Senate can look at, or are we being asked here to give stamp of approval to a process about a critical matter for local government, the details of which are not being given to us?16:11:007522Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Firstly, the flow-on to small business does not necessarily follow. Senator Brown, I understand, is saying that if you have got a period of grace relating to local government this has ramifications for small business. My instructions are that this is not the case—that you cannot draw that long bow. In relation to the specific question of local government, that question of period of grace is being worked out at the moment. As I understand it, it will not be subject to purview of the Senate. But of course it will be worked out with local government. Local government is a party to that negotiation and is directly involved in working that out.16:12:007522Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Let me record my disapproval of that, because the Senate ought to know what these arrangements are. The government has been drawing up this legislation for two years now. It ought to be in a position to tell the Senate what the period of grace for local government is going to be, what form of revenues it is going to expect the states and territories to withhold from local government and what it is going to do if a local government defaults to the point where it cannot continue to provide services under this arrangement.The analogy I was making with small business was not a flow-on. It was that I predict a large number of small businesses will go to the wall because they default on payment of GST, because they have not equipped themselves to be able to pay when the tax man or woman comes knocking on the door.I want to be assured that there is set in place here a process where, particularly smaller, local governments are going to be made safe from failure of their revenue flow simply because they were not aware of the impact of the GST on their revenues. We ought to know that. It is pretty fundamental. Local government is very often given last consideration in the ranks of government in matters like this. The minister says that this is currently being negotiated with local government. With which local governments? I presume that means with local government representative bodies around the country. But it would be very good of him if he could explain to the Senate in just what way local government is being assured that everybody in local government is going to be fully aware and cognisant of the ramifications of GST payments, the impact on revenue at local government level and the need for timetabling to be able to pay the GST.I presume it is going to be on a quarterly basis. Is it going to be on a quarterly basis or an annual basis? Is this going to be built into annual budgets? I just want my concern about this registered. I think the government is not acting wisely, and I do not think the Senate is acting wisely in having to accept something as important as this without being given the detail.16:15:007523Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can only say that the Australian Taxation Office has been working with local government on this issue. There is a special unit in the tax office which is working with local government. It is clearly in the government's interest to work with local government to sort this matter out. Senator Brown may have his concerns; we will just have to agree to disagree. But I reject the notion that local government has not been consulted on this.16:15:007523Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—One last question: could the minister tell the Senate what the expected amount of money to be raised through this tax package from local government will be around the country in a financial year? That will give us a lead as to what the impact is going to be on any local government around the country. I hope he is going to be able to inform us, because it is very important that local government itself and elected representatives at local government level know what the size of the impact of this GST package on local government is going to be. That in turn is going to impact on the services they provide for their jurisdictions. The Commonwealth ought to be in the business of being able to at least give a close approximation of what it expects to raise through the GST from local government in the first financial year of operation.16:17:007523Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At this stage it is just not possible to forecast the income that is expected from local government. With reference to my earlier point, I can say that I am advised that the Australian Taxation Office met with all state associations of local government.16:17:007523Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am sorry, I will make this the last one. Is it expected that it will be in the order of 10 per cent from local government? Can the minister at least give a percentage figure of the indent on revenue raising that the GST is going to have for local government, or has he no idea at all what the impact of the GST is going to be on local government?16:17:007523Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I just reiterate my previous answer that it is just not possible to forecast a figure at this stage.16:17:007523Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Following on from Senator Brown's questions, I am also curious as to the matter of the tax office meeting with all state associations. I wonder if you could advise when that happened and what the nature of the discussions was. Also, could you further detail precisely what consultation has occurred with local government in terms of the impact of the GST and the retention of FAGs by the Commonwealth?16:18:007523Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—That is not available, it is not to hand, and I will have to take that on notice.16:18:007523Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Minister, if you could seek some advice in relation to that, what I am asking is: are you sure that there was a meeting with the tax office and state associations to talk about the impact of the GST? Putting that aside for a moment, the second question is: how close is the government to determining the impact of GST on local government—which services of local government will be subject to a GST and which services will not?16:19:007524Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I think this has been trawled over before—TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—It sure has.RF4COOKSenator Cook—How would you know?TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—I was in the chair at the time.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—In the previous debate in relation to the legislation, this was the subject of attention. I would say that this has been answered previously. In relation to the other matters, the Australian Taxation Office, as I understand it, did meet with the state associations. Those are my instructions. I cannot provide you with any more detail than that.16:19:007524Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Minister, with all due respect, this has not been trawled over. In fact, we attempted for many hours in the estimates process to get answers to questions on precisely what the impact of the GST was going to be on local government. The minister refused point blank to answer those questions, so the impact of a GST on local government has never been the subject of discussion in this chamber—TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Oh!9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Never ever, Senator Knowles. Not only that: the minister has refused to answer questions in relation to the impact of a GST on local government. For the Senate's information, the state associations are currently in the dark as to how the GST is going to impact on them. Frankly, it is certainly not good enough for the minister to churlishly refuse to answer questions in estimates after the deal had been struck with the Democrats, but it is quite bizarre to say that this has been trawled over, because it has not been trawled over.16:21:007524Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—If Senator Mackay persists with that question, I will take it on notice. In relation to the impact of the GST on local government, I reiterate that we are not in a position at this stage to forecast what that will be.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—When will you be?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—I am afraid I cannot give you a date and time in relation to that. It is a matter which we are just not able to forecast at this time.16:21:007524Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Can the minister tell the Senate whether the GST will require either a reduction in expenditure or an increase in rates by the average local government in Australia?16:22:007524Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This question has no relevance to this A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 . This is an absolute furphy in relation to the bill before us. Senator Brown might want to direct his questions to local government.16:22:007524Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This question is relevant to A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 and to the minister's responsibility to answer. After all, we are being asked to vote here for a process by which local government and its statutory corporations and authorities will operate as if they are subject to the GST—they will be required to register. More pertinently, this legislation provides for states and territories to have to withhold revenue from local government if it is not paying its GST. So it is not good enough for the minister to say, `Go and ask somebody else about it; this is my legislation, but I am not dealing with it here.' That is what this committee is about and it is appalling that the minister cannot give any indication to the committee as to what the impact of the GST will be on the authorities.Alternatively, we could ask him how much he expects a state or territory government might withhold, or what measures states or territories are going to take to help local government if it gets into financial difficulties because suddenly it finds itself with a very sizeable GST bill. But the minister cannot even say what the percentage impact on finances is going to be, let alone what the global cost to local government around the country will be. Inherently in what he says, local government is going to be paying very considerable sums above and beyond current expenditure to the Australian Taxation Office—to the Howard government, courtesy of the Democrats—for the GST. The minister knows that local government does not have the backup that federal and state governments have, and some local governments are going to find themselves in an invidious situation because of this legislation. The minister ought to be able to say what the impact is going to be, because I believe it is incumbent on the federal government to make sure that local governments are assisted before the event so that they do not find themselves in default in a way which prevents them continuing to manage or, worse, to provide services.This is pretty draconian. It says that, if local government does not pay the GST, state and territory governments have to, by law, withhold funding to that amount. It is appalling that the minister says, `I don't know what the impact is going to be. This is my legislation, but either I do not understand it or you should go and ask somebody else.' I again register my objection over the failure of the government to inform us and therefore local government, now, before we vote on this matter, as to what the impact is going to be and what measures the government has put in place to assist local government, which is going to face the penalty under this legislation if it cannot handle the impact of GST.16:25:007525Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—On that last point in this debate on the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 , the government has told everyone what it believes the savings to local government will be, but it will not say what the costs to local government will be. Therefore no-one knows what the net benefit or cost will be.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—It will be a cost.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Yes, you are right, Senator Brown: it will be a cost. We have this one-sided promotion saying that it is all savings, but of course there are clearly costs. We dealt with the GST legislation some months ago and now we are back here amending it. My first question to the minister is this: can the minister say whether these amendments will involve the government in changing its advertising on the new tax system that is now currently being pushed at the Australian people? I notice on TV that we have advertisements about the new tax system. Do these amendments involve any change to the advertising message?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—They are not properly authorised, either.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—The second question I ask is: given that that advertising is allegedly about the new tax system, why do the words `GST' never appear in the advertisements? The words `GST' do not appear in the advertisements, yet they are about a tax system that involves a GST. Does that represent some sort of government attempt to manage the information flow? I thought that the ads were authorised by the minister who is now, seemingly, leaving the table, but if they are not properly authorised, what does the government intend to do about these ads? Are they going to authorise them in the proper manner or not?16:27:007525Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 is not part of the advertising campaign. The advertising campaign is separate from this. The advertising campaign will be a very successful campaign. Our campaigns in relation to tax reform have always been successful, and there is no reason in my view why this should not be another very successful advertising campaign.16:28:007525Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Will the government inform the Senate whether they have any intention of raising the minimum tax threshold in remote areas so that people living in remote areas will be able to pay this possible higher cost to their local governments, and in such a manner assist the local governments in being able to meet their extra costs under the GST?16:29:007525Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This question does not relate to the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 that is before the committee. You will be aware, Senator, that we have provided very extensive tax cuts which have been welcomed and which will be welcomed by the Australian public. These are arguably the largest tax cuts in Australian history—some $12 billion worth of tax cuts. The government has made some very important changes in that regard.The cuts in diesel excise are another thing which is particularly helpful to regional and rural Australia. It is something on which we reversed the trend of previous governments, the tendency of which was to always raise the excise rates. I think you will find that this is a very good package for regional and rural Australia. When you cut the cost of diesel excise the way we are cutting it, when you preside over very substantial cuts in income tax and also give assistance to railways, this is a very good package indeed for regional and rural Australia.16:30:007526Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I recognise the tax cuts that are in the package will assist people on properties, but there is nothing in this package that will assist rural people who are living in the towns. My question again is: will the government give consideration to lifting the minimum tax threshold for those people who do work diligently in the country areas and work hard to maintain the services in their towns? This is one way that the government could assist those people in rural areas in a positive way—by giving them relief on the minimum tax threshold, thus assisting the entire area, including local government, to meet their commitments under your tax.16:31:007526Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I do not know whether you were listening to me. You suggest that this does not have anything to help individuals in a country town, when I have indicated to you the massive tax cuts that have been proposed by this government, when I have indicated to you the very substantial cuts in diesel excise and the impact that will have on transport costs and when I indicate to you the very important family package, which will also be of great assistance. If you look at that tax package carefully, you will see that this is a very good tax package for rural and regional Australia. Senator Cook, as the shadow minister for trade who occasionally ventures forth into that area, would know, and I am sure he would be the first to endorse what I am saying.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—We know how much you were consulted on the tax package, Rod. You weren't consulted at all.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Here we are. The gentleman who was responsible for the Collins class submarines. You are making as much noise as one of those submarines, Senator Ray. Six years as minister for defence. I think you will find that this is a very benign package for regional and rural Australia.16:32:007526Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am pleased that Senator Kemp has come to the bench.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I can't second that.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—We are about to test Senator Ray's interjection there. In terms of the impact of the GST on local government, can Senator Kemp give that to us either as a percentage of their financing for a year or in terms of expected revenue collection? Senator Ellison told us that the government does not know. I do not believe that. We have seen extensive claims about how much money is going to be raised by the GST, and it is impossible for those figures to have come to be without there being an assessment of what component is going to come from local government, for example. That will be a sizeable part of the collection of revenue. So I ask Senator Kemp, the expert for the government in the field, to give us those figures. Could he also give us a little more insight into how state and territory governments are going to withhold revenue from local governments in the event that they default on GST?16:34:007526Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have to say that this is ranging very far and wide. The GST will have a beneficial effect on local governments the way it will have a beneficial effect on the Australian economy. Local governments will be able to claim their input tax credits. Local governments will therefore be able to claim back the GST that they pay on their inputs. Do you understand that?TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—They don't understand.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—They don't understand. Okay. That is why it is very good for local government and it is very good for business. I point out to you that the very significant changes in diesel excise will be very good for local government. So I am not quite sure what you are driving at, but my understanding is that people in local government who look very closely at the impact of tax reform on local government would be very pleased with this package. I think they would be rather concerned that you do not even seem to understand the fact that local government will be able to claim the input tax credits on their purchases. You do not even appear to be able to understand that.16:35:007527Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I understand it very clearly, but Senator Ellison made it clear that the government did not know whether it would be a benefit or a detriment to local government in sheer financial terms. Senator Kemp has now said that it is going to be beneficial to local government. Can he give the figure for the benefit? Can he give the percentage benefit? He will not give either, because he simply does not know it; he has no idea. But I might put it in simpler terms to the minister. Can he give a guarantee, a commitment or an assurance that no local government is going to be worse off in terms of its ability to service its community because of the GST?16:36:007527Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have made very clear that local government will substantially benefit from the tax reform package. For the reasons I have stated, we believe that local governments will be able to claim their input tax credits, so in that way they will be able to claim back GST paid on their purchases. Local governments will benefit from the very substantial cuts in diesel excise on a range of products. Local governments will benefit from the removal of wholesale sales taxes and will benefit from the removal of a range of other taxes. So local government will benefit substantially from tax reform. On that there is no argument.16:37:007527Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—In that case, why do we have the draconian need for this law, which is going to have state and territory governments withhold revenues from local governments that are not keeping up their GST payments? Why not simply take the particular local government to court the same as everybody else? Senator Ray used the term `faith'. I do not see any faith in local government being expressed by the government here at all. They are saying, `We're going to have you over the rack as far as GST is concerned,' and the implication is that this is going to have a very negative impact on local government.It is simply an affront to this chamber that Senator Ellison and Senator Kemp are getting up and making these blandishments but are unable to provide to this chamber or are unwilling to give—because I believe the government has it—to this chamber the information that local government should have about the dollars and cents that are going to be diverted out of local government revenues into the tax office through this GST package. The government cannot give that in dollars and cents or in percentage terms.16:38:007527Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Let me try to make this simple for the minister.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—It would be easy for you, Senator!9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Let me try to make it simple for you. Local government does not know how the GST is going to impact on it. It does not know.Senator Calvert interjecting—9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—In terms of nominal charges where services are provided, Senator Calvert, local government does not know which services they are going to apply to. The simple question is this: is the government still of the view that where a nominal charge for a community service is provided that service will be still be subject to a GST? Local government does not know the answer and the state associations do not know the answer. So the question is: how will the GST impact on local government? If you do not know—I do not think the government does know at this point how it will apply, and I agree with Senator Brown that this is somewhat of an outrage—can you tell us when you will know and when this matter will be resolved?16:40:007528Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I find it very hard to believe that you are the shadow minister for local government.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Minister, would you please cease casting aspersions and answer the questions.Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Well, I know you will never be a minister, Senator Conroy. You will never be one, except perhaps if there is one of branch stacking.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Minister!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Then, Senator Conroy, you will be the minister.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Minister!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—You will be the minister.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Minister, resume your seat!Senator Conroy interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—But—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Minister Kemp, resume your seat, please. I will have some order in this place. Senator Kemp, you have been here long enough to know that you do not cast aspersions or reflections upon your colleagues on either side of this place.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—It has to work both ways.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Knowles, I will have you to order too, thank you. I would appreciate, Minister, if you would answer the questions with a bit less of the commentary, thank you. And both sides must maintain order.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—On the point of order.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order, Minister.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am entitled to take a point of order. I wish to take a point of order. May I take a point of order?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—The point of order is this: when I stood up to speak, I was subjected to loud abuse from the opposition benches, and I was going to ask you whether in future you planned to bring the opposition benches to order. Madam Chair, you spoke, I might say, somewhat firmly to me, and that is fair enough.Senator Cook interjecting—Senator Conroy interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Conroy and Senator Cook!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—If I have transgressed, you are entitled to do that, but we on this side noticed that you spoke firmly to me but there was a range of abuse and interjections coming from the other side. Would you tell us whether you plan to bring them to order or not?UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—On the point of order: I think the chair has been rebuking both sides. It is just a matter of style for Senator Kemp that he genuinely did not hear Madam Chair rebuke him. He continued on and that is why he got a second, a third and a fourth rebuke. He was so absorbed in the argument and in his own sort of projection of the argument—and that was clear to us on this side—that he did not hear your first three warnings, Madam Chair. So then it seems somewhat more harsh to him when he suddenly is sat down and bowled over. There are only two solutions for that: Senator Kemp might listen more carefully to the chair and get less absorbed by the debate. That is exactly what happened; there was not a differential treatment from one side of the chamber to the other.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. I have been trying to call order on both sides and have been ignored on both sides. I will not, however, tolerate senators casting aspersions about each other. That was the point I was trying to pull you up on, Senator Kemp. Would you please continue to answer the question.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—On the point of order, if I have caused—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I can take a point of order. I am entitled to take a point of order.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Well, you ask to take a point of order, thank you.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I wish to take a point of order. May I take a point of order, thank you very much?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—What is your point of order?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I have heard what Senator Ray said. Senator Ray is right to the extent that if I was spoken to once or twice I had not heard that, so that should not be taken as any reflection on the chair. I thought I was making quite a good argument actually and it is not unreasonable that I was absorbed in that.Madam Chair, I make the point that I was responding to some interjections from the other side. I am quite happy to be called to order but I do suggest that it be done in an even-handed manner. That is the point of order I am making.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. I have already ruled on the point of order.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Conroy! I do not require your interjections. Senator Kemp, if you were to try to ignore the interjections and speak to me—address the chair—you might find that you are less distracted by the interjections.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Conroy! You are not helping.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am always happy to speak through you, Madam Chair. In relation to Senator Mackay's questions, I understand there have been very extensive discussions with local government bodies in relation to the impact of the GST; in fact, if you have people in local government who are uncertain and wish to bring certain points to the government's attention, I will assist in personally arranging it for you. You have not approached me on this. You say that some local governments are in confusion. If you could give me their names, we will see that they are properly informed. I make that offer to you.To summarise, let me go through the general principles. Local government rates will not be subject to GST. This will mean that services funded by rates will effectively be GST free. All water and sewerage charges will be GST free irrespective of their provider. This will ensure that privatised water and sewerage services will not be disadvantaged compared with public providers. Community care services provided by local government will be GST free where the local government receives funding under the Home and Community Care Act. I think that you may have been referring to some of those services. Community care services provided or funded by local government are treated no differently from community care services provided by the private sector. Local government is currently exempt from wholesale sales tax; however, many goods purchased by local governments have wholesale sales tax embedded in their prices. The abolition of the wholesale sales tax will remove these costs to local councils.RF4COOKSenator Cook—They don't pay it.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We are talking about embedded costs. Do you want me to go over that again for you, Senator? The GST will apply to activities of local government where it charges a fee for supplying a good or service, except for water and sewerage services. This will ensure that local government does not have an unfair advantage over private firms in conducting commercial activities. Local councils, which will inevitably register for GST, will collect GST on their business activities and be entitled to claim input tax credits on all their purchases.As I said, we have had discussions with local councils, and we hold ourselves ready to have discussions with local councils. In as simple terms as you tried to put it to me, I make this offer: if there are some local councils that have particular issues or queries, I will arrange for them to be briefed.16:47:007529Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I formally advise you, Minister: every single state association is unclear as to the impact of the GST on local government. I will tell you what I would not mind, if you are prepared to do it: your providing me with the briefing in the next couple of days as to the impact of the GST on local government. Can you organise that?16:47:007530Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—My advisers seem to be intruding into this debate, but let me take that one on notice. I say this because we have had experiences before—and I do not say with you, Senator, because I do not think you are that sort of shadow minister—where sometimes these have not been entirely successful. I have a reputation for always trying to be helpful to senators in this chamber. I have a very well-justified reputation for assisting senators wherever I can if it is a sincere request, so let me see what I can do to assist you.16:48:007530Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I asked a series of questions earlier and I did not obtain an answer to them. To go back, we carried the GST legislation about two or three months ago. Now we have a A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 to amend it. My first question is: does anything in this bill require the publicity campaign, costing Australian taxpayers $10 million, to be altered? My second question is: given that it is a so-called educative campaign, and the government is not able, or should not be able, to use taxpayers' funds for propaganda purposes to proselytise its political views—we would rather they spent it on educating people as to their rights and entitlements—why are the words `goods and services tax' not included in this campaign? Thirdly—a question through you, Madam Chairman, directly to the minister, Senator Kemp—this question arose from an interjection: are you the minister who authorises the content of that publicity?A fourth question has arisen from the examination of you by my colleagues interested in local government: Minister, what educative publicity, under the heading of this campaign, is provided to local government to answer the obvious queries that they have? They are my questions. Let me conclude, however, by saying that in some of the remarks you made earlier, you were inclined— 10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Cook, I keep asking people to address the chair. Every time you use the word `you', it refers to me.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You are quite right, Madam Chairman. I stand rebuked and I apologise to you for that. Madam Chairman, Senator Kemp earlier started to warm to his subject and talked about the so-called advantages of a GST on exports. He never quite developed his argument, but let me kill this furphy before it gets any further. Exports are zero rated. The government aggregates the so-called taxes that would be saved to Australian exporters and argues that this is somehow a windfall gain to Australian exporters. The government has not told us—under probing by the Senate committee we extracted this from the Department of the Treasury—that the impact of those changes will force up the exchange rate by between three and four points. Therefore, those exporters who are in markets that are overhung by supply—where they are price takers, not price setters; that is, classically, the entire minerals market as well as the entire agricultural export market—will be worse off because they will have higher prices, and they will not have the competitive advantage delivered to them as well.I note that the adviser is leaning over to advise the minister on the arguments he should use about this. But I remind the minister that the evidence of the Treasury said that this is the knock-on effect. As a consequence, while there will be savings, the knock-on effect will mean that there will be higher costs; in the case of our most vulnerable exporters, costs that will make them less, not more, competitive. Every time the government tells only half the story, I think the opposition should finish the argument so the full story is before Australian taxpayers. With those remarks, I return to my questions and I look forward to an answer.16:52:007530Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—On the last question, which was on the effects on exports, the fact of the matter is that the exporters prefer our tax model to yours. My understanding is that the export sector is very supportive of what we are doing in tax reform. You can have this debate in the chamber. You can make as many assumptions as you like, but the truth of the matter is that this is very good for exports. Embedded taxes are removed. As you said, exports are zero rated and, frankly, I do not think there would be an exporter in this country who would want to go back to the Labor Party tax model.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Want to bet?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We had a bet, in a sense, in the last election. You lost that. We had a major debate in this chamber over a very long period. You lost that. Frankly, I suspect that the way you are going you will certainly lose the next election, but that is how these things happen in politics. That is where the testing ground is. I have huge confidence in the package and the reform agenda we have, especially compared with anything the Labor Party might put up. That is my answer to your question, `Do you want to bet?'I am not the minister who authorises the advertising campaign. If I were asked to authorise it, I would be very happy to do so. It seems to me to be a very good campaign and, as I go around listening to what people are saying, I think it is very well planned. I think we are quite entitled to inform people about a tax system which has been passed by the Senate—with opposition from the Labor Party but, nonetheless, passed by this parliament. The government is carrying out its proper responsibilities and informing the public. I am not aware of any change which may be required as a result of any material going through here. You have raised the question and so I will look at that issue, but I am not aware as I stand here of any changes.You asked why the GST is not mentioned in the campaign. The GST is the centrepiece of the campaign. If you go into the Internet or phone the infolines, you will find that the word `GST' appears constantly, I would have thought. We are encouraging people to seek information on the GST. I am not sure what you are driving at but it seems to me that there is a great deal of information out there on the GST. I think that covers the matters that Senator Cook raised. There are some issues on which Senator Cook and I will undoubtedly differ in matters of public debate but, as I said, I will always try to assist him with answers to questions.16:56:007531Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—In an endeavour to enable the minister to do the same again, let me ask another question. Senator Kemp says he is not the one who authorises the advertisements. Who does? Which minister takes responsibility? Secondly, there is no mention of the GST in the television advertising. Why is there no mention of the GST in the television advertising?16:56:007531Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I understand that the committee that approves this is a very distinguished committee—not that this has anything to do with the bill, I might say. It has nothing to do with the bill, so I think we should attempt to confine ourselves to the legislation before the chamber. We have had very long debates on the goods and services tax and no-one has ever resiled from using that term as far as I am aware. The relevant committee is chaired by a very distinguished senator on our side—Senator Ellison—who, as in everything he touches, does a very good job. I have no reason to query his particular work in this regard. I frankly think that to suggest that people are hiding the word `GST' is absurd. We had an election on the GST. The Labor Party said it was a referendum on the GST.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—And you lost—48 per cent of the vote was all the government got. As a referendum on the GST, you lost.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—If we lost and you won, I am very happy with the result because we seem to be over here and you seem to be over there. I hope you have many more victories like this, Senator Conroy, if that is the case. I do not know what point Senator Cook was making about not mentioning the GST. Those three letters must have sunk into the public consciousness by now. No-one is hiding anything. We are trying to inform people. They will get a host of material where the term `goods and services tax' is mentioned. We are proud of the system that we have brought in. We are not trying to hide anything from the public. This has been the most relentlessly exposed election promise and these have been the most relentlessly debated bills before this parliament, and so no-one is trying to hide anything.Question resolved in the affirmative.Resolution reported; report adopted.7532Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Miscellaneous7532The Deputy Clerk—Documents are tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 12 August 1999 relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—I was intending to seek leave to make some comments in relation to that matter. I have not seen the documents. I would inquire first if those are the documents which satisfy the return to order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—I understand from the Deputy Clerk that there is a report behind us.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—And that those matters satisfy the full terms of the return to order?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The Deputy Clerk said she is not in a position to make a judgment on whether they do or they do not. But they have been produced. Perhaps when those documents are made available you might peruse them while we go on to the next matter.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Thank you.Bills7532r7557532Message received from the House of Representatives returning the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements—Consequential Provisions) Bill 1999 , disagreeing to the amendment made by the Senate but making an amendment in place thereof, making further amendments, and requesting the reconsideration of the bill.Ordered that the message be considered in committee of the whole immediately.House of Representatives message—Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate disagreed to by the House of Representatives:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Schedule 2 commences at the later of: (a) the start of 1 July 2000; and (b) the commencement of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 .Schedule of the amendment made by the House of Representatives in place thereof:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 10) to page 2 (line 3), omit the clause, substitute: 2 Commencement This Act commences at the later of: (a) the start of 1 July 2000; and (b) the commencement of the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 .Schedule of the amendments made by the House of Representatives:(1) Title, page 1 (lines 1 to 4), omit the title, substitute "A Bill for an Act to repeal the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994 ".(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 5), omit "Subject to section 2, each", substitute "Each".(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 9 (line 5), omit the Schedule.(4) Schedule 2, page 10 (lines 2 to 18), omit the Schedule, substitute:Schedule 1—Repeal of the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 19941 The whole of the Act Repeal the Act.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That the committee does not insist on its amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives and agrees to the amendment made in place thereof.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That the committee agrees to the further amendments made by the House of Representatives.Resolution reported; report adopted.Miscellaneous753310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Senator O'Brien, have you had a chance to peruse those documents?17:03:007533O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I have had a brief opportunity to address the documents and it appears that the return to order is not complied with. I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the matter.Leave granted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—The minister in this place, Senator Macdonald, said:I refer to the order for the production of documents in relation to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board made by the Senate on 12 August. With reference to part A of that order, I have to inform you that as yet Mr Stephen Skehill has not completed his investigation nor prepared his report. Therefore, the government is not able to produce the specified material at this time.Senator Calvert on 10 August told the Senate in relation to the Skehill report:That review has been done. The report is, I believe, on its way to the minister.If there is no report then, unfortunately, Senator Calvert appears to have misled the Senate on that matter and Senator Calvert might like to explain when he was advised that he had misled the Senate. He might also like to advise the Senate why he did not come into this place to correct the record at the first opportunity, as convention requires. However, if Senator Calvert was representing the facts at that time and a report does exist then it should now be able to be tabled.I accept, I guess, what the minister said on face value—that the report has not been produced. Perhaps there are two reports, some interim report which Senator Calvert was referring to and a final report. I take it that the government will produce the specified material, that is, Mr Stephen Skehill's report, when it is concluded if it is not now concluded. The Senate can be forgiven if it has anticipated the handing down of Mr Skehill's report, given the comments that I refer to in the Hansard which were not subject to any correction either by Senator Calvert or by the minister. Senator Macdonald's letter goes on:Material from board minutes that is not relevant to the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety and the process of recruiting Mr Foley for that position has been excluded. Deletions have been made of personal information relating to persons other than Mr Foley, some personal details relating to Mr Foley and of commercial-in-confidence material relating to Spencer Stewart or other firms.With reference to part D of the order I provide a full copy of the transcript of proceedings from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. You will note that some part of the hearing was held in-camera. Part of page 44 of the transcript and pages 45 and 48 are transcript-in-confidence.I have not had a chance to examine the transcript as it has obviously just been tabled. But in relation to the production of board minutes, I take it that the Senate will have the opportunity to peruse those matters and make some comment, if required, at a later date.I ask that the minister advise the Senate as soon as possible of the likely timing of the Skehill report which he says is in the course of production, and undertake to the Senate that he will table the report when it is completed. I take it that would obviate the need for further motions in this place in relation to that report.Miscellaneous753317:08:007533O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Mackay, I move:That the amendment of section 95.55 of the Civil Aviation Orders, dated 30 April 1999, and made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, be disallowed.The opposition has moved to disallow these particular changes for a very simple reason—that is, the failure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to consult with those most affected by these changes. What we have here, unfortunately, once again, is a failure of the process on CASA's part—a failure yet again to sit down and go through proposed changes to the aviation regulatory framework with the pilots, aircraft owners and manufacturers most affected by them.This situation, I might say, is a reminder to the Senate of what one would have thought would have been a very salutary lesson that CASA might have learned from the very public class G airspace debacle of several months ago where, I think it is fair to say, a large component of the failure of that particular exercise was due to CASA's unwillingness to properly consult with, and to listen to, airspace users. The changes that are the subject of this disallowance are of a much lesser order in that they affect a much smaller number of people, but they are significant to the ultralight aviation industry affected by them and they do reflect a continuation of that pattern of inadequate consultation and poor process that we unfortunately saw surrounding the class G airspace trial.The background to this disallowance began in May last year when CASA published a notice of proposed rule making entitled, `Increase in ultralight aeroplane maximum take-off weight limit'. A notice of proposed rule making is basically the first public step in the process of changing aviation regulations. It is a notice that lets aviation communities know what changes CASA is proposing, and it provides an opportunity for comment on the changes. This particular notice stated that CASA intended to increase to 544 kilograms the maximum take-off weight of aeroplanes certified under Civil Aviation Order 101.55. These are ultralight, amateur built—that is, home built—aircraft.In this case CASA received a number of comments on the notice of proposed rule making and decided to amend Civil Aviation Order 95.55 instead of Civil Aviation Order 101.55. It seems to me that, irrespective of subsequent events, CASA should have issued a new notice of proposed rule making before proceeding to amend CAO 95.55. That would have been the proper process. But CASA apparently decided it was unnecessary to publish any notice on its changes to Civil Aviation Order 95.55 and proceeded to amend that civil aviation order in 1998. The problem was that new items were incorporated into the Civil Aviation Order 95.55 amendments—that is, items that had not appeared in the original notice of proposed rule making appeared but they had not been the subject of any consultation with the ultralight community. In effect, these new changes removed the approval for ultralight aircraft to enter controlled airspace.It seems to me that the push for these changes to the regulatory regime was driven by a small section of the aviation industry that remains opposed to amateur built aircraft owners being able to register and operate their aircraft within the Australian Ultralight Federation. I put on record here that the opposition has no problem with such an arrangement and considers the Australian Ultralight Federation to be a diligent organisation that takes its safety responsibilities seriously.Ultralight pilots were alarmed and angry that these changes had occurred without consultation with them. They were of the view—and I am advised they remain of the view—that access to controlled airspace is essential in some areas, and in some circumstances essential for safety reasons. CASA subsequently accepted that it had failed to follow proper consultation processes and re-amended Civil Aviation Order 95.55 to remove the items concerned. The re-amended order was gazetted on 30 April 1999.In an email to the Australian Ultralight Federation, the Director of CASA, Mick Toller, stated that this action:. . . returns the position to what legally prevailed before the weight increase changes took effect.Now CASA says it is putting new consultation processes in place to prevent such a situation occurring in future and is also preparing a discussion paper addressing the issue of allowing ultralight aircraft to enter and fly through controlled airspace. But the problem is that CASA has not returned the position to what legally prevailed prior to the initial amendment to Civil Aviation Order 95.55. In particular, a new definition of stall speed has been included and remains in the amended order.In the old Civil Aviation Order 95.55, the aircraft had to have a stall speed that did not exceed 45 knots indicated air speed. In the amended Civil Aviation Order 95.55, the aircraft stall speed must not exceed 45 knots CAS—that is, calibrated air speed. There seems to have been no mention of calibrated air speed prior to the gazettal of the re-amended Civil Aviation Order 95.55 on 19 May, and there has been no consultation, I am advised, with the relevant sections of the industry at this point.All of this is a pretty technical argument because we are dealing with technical matters here. Without going too deeply into the technical aspects of this matter, indicated airspeed is essentially, I am advised, the reading taken from an aircraft's airspeed indicator. It is a reading used by pilots to adjust their aircraft's performance. Take off, climb, approach, landing and stall speeds are based on indicated air speed. It is considered a sufficiently accurate measurement for light aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes and relatively low speeds.Calibrated airspeed, on the other hand, is an accurate and technical indication of airspeed. Measuring calibrated airspeed requires extensive in-flight testing with significant additional technical equipment on board. I am advised that most pilots of light aircraft do not concern themselves with calibrated airspeed. However, where there is a manufacturer involved, handbooks issued by those aircraft manufacturers list the calibrated airspeed for various elements of an aircraft's performance, and pilots can refer to these if required. In this case, we are talking about aircraft which are essentially non-commercially homemade. One can envisage a great many circumstances where an owner would have no such manufacturer's technical specification to rely upon. It may be that CASA has decided to require a measurement of calibrated airspeed right across the board—for all classes of aircraft. It is not clear just how much safer that would make ultralight or microlight aviation, but it might be considered a legitimate and consistent approach to take.However, in this case the problem is that CASA have not actually told anyone that that is what they are planning to do. They have not consulted anyone on that point. The Australian Ultralight Federation argue that the inclusion of calibrated airspeed will impose additional costs on Australian amateur built ultralights with no improvement in safety. They also argue that it discriminates against the category of amateur built aircraft, as other categories do not include such a requirement. But the Australian Ultralight Federation's biggest concern is that the change was incorporated with no consultation whatsoever with the relevant sections of the industry, most notably ultralight pilots and Australian ultralight manufacturers. The Australian Ultralight Federation informed me that they believe the issue to be so significant that CASA—if they wanted to introduce this new requirement either in a specific category or across the board—should go through the appropriate and established process; that is, issue a notice of proposed rule making and undertake proper consultation following that.The opposition is of a like view. Should we be successful in moving for this disallowance, we would urge that CASA go back to the start of this process, do it properly with the proper consultation and, in consulting those industries most affected by the measures, explain exactly what they are doing and why and give them a proper opportunity to have an input into the process. At the end of the day, I suspect that the opposition which underlies this might be satisfied if the matter is proceeded with. Given what I said earlier about the failings of CASA with regard to consultation and the lesson one would argue they should have learnt from the absolute debacle of the public class G trial failure, one would think CASA would have been very careful to ensure that any process they followed involved full and open consultation with the sections of industry affected. Had that been the case, I suspect there might have been a different response from organisations such as the Ultralight Federation. But, of course, we do not and will not know that because the process in this case has not been followed. The aviation community, or the sections of the community affected by this change, believe that they have been ambushed by the change in regulation. They do not accept that it is necessary. They do not believe they have had an opportunity to argue their case. They believe—as does the opposition—that this regulation ought to be disallowed and that, if CASA intend to proceed, they begin the process again and conclude it following the appropriate procedures.17:21:007536Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I refer to Senator O'Brien's earlier comments about the return to order that has just been tabled. The Deputy Prime Minister's office has advised me that the Skehill report should be completed at the end of the month and that the report will be tabled once it is completed. I hope that will be of help to the senator.Let me stress at the outset that the government's mandate to CASA is to rewrite the aviation safety regulatory framework so that it is globally harmonised. The government's aim is to create one tier of delegated legislation—the civil aviation safety regulations. Australian standards will be neither more lenient nor more onerous than those in major aviation nations such as the US, the UK and Canada.CASA has advised that, in making changes to CAO 95.55 last year, proper industry and public consultation procedures were not followed. My understanding of the current situation is that the most recent amendments, made to the order on 19 May, address those items not properly covered by the consultation process and those paragraphs that were removed wrongly in the earlier amendment. These include ultralight flight in controlled airspace and the use of calibrated airspeed as the unit of measurement for stall speed.The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has written to MPs and senators asserting that aircraft registered as ultralights face different operating restrictions from aircraft on the general register. They claim that every detail of the aircraft is identical, but they have not told senators the full story. What they have not told you is that ultralight pilots are subject to less rigorous licensing standards than pilots generally. They are subject to less rigorous medical requirements and aircraft registered as ultralights have lower maintenance requirements than aircraft on the VH register.The opposition says that there was no consultation for these amendments. In fact, the Office of Regulation Review advised that a regulation impact statement was not necessary as the amendments are of a minor or machinery nature and do not involve policy changes. I feel that is very relevant to the arguments which you were putting, Senator. The motion to disallow the amendments appears to be based on the assumption that indicated airspeed should be used instead of calibrated airspeed. This assumption is completely flawed. In fact, the amendment corrects an error which CASA made when it amended CAO 95.55 in October 1998. The October amendments changed the stall speed limit from 40 knots calibrated airspeed to 45 knots. The October amendments erroneously omitted to state that the unit in which the stall speed is measured is calibrated airspeed. The amendments correct that error.An attempt to disallow these amendments is an attempt to perpetrate a legislative error. It was not an intended error; it was a legislative error. There are two ways of measuring airspeed. Indicated airspeed is the raw reading obtained from the aircraft sensors. Calibrated airspeed corrects this reading for instrument errors and position errors. In other words, if you want an accurate representation of the aircraft airspeed, you have to use the calibrated airspeed. Anyone with a technical background—which I do not claim to have, but my advice is of that nature—who claims that CASA meant that stall speed should be measured using indicated airspeed is being deceptive. CASA consistently uses calibrated airspeed as the unit of measurement for stall speed. What happened in October was an error, a regrettable oversight. I have that from time to time in my portfolio. So I have some sympathy for CASA and for the transport portfolio.Australian legislation has consistently used calibrated airspeed as the stall speed unit. For example, CAO 101.55, which up to October 1998 regulated the stall speed limits of ultralights, used the CAS unit. CAO 101.28, which governs the airworthiness of certification requirements for amateur built aircraft, also regulates stall speed limits using the CAS unit. That is why the federal aviation regulations—the air safety legislation of the United States—use calibrated airspeed as the stall speed unit. That is why the joint aviation authorities which set aviation standards for the major European states use calibrated airspeed as the stall speed unit.If these amendments are disallowed, the Senate will be signalling that it wants Australia's aviation safety legislation to be inconsistent with that of the major aviation states such as the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany. I cannot believe that the opposition is intending that. I urge you to vote against this misguided motion to disallow commonsense amendments to CAO 95.55. I remind you that the amendments clarify that stall speeds should be measured in calibrated airspeed. They ensure that Australia's aviation safety regulations are consistent with international standards.A new notice of proposed rule making—NPRM—on sport aviation will be issued in October 1999. This will cover pilot standards, maintainer standards and definitions of ultralight aircraft and give all interested parties an opportunity to state their positions. CASA is putting in place a new consultation process which will prevent such a situation from happening in the future and ensure that all legislative change will be covered by the formal notice of proposed rule making process.In conclusion, I suggest that the appropriate process to ensure that Australian regulations governing sport aviation operations are harmonised and ensure safety standards that are equal to the best global standards is to follow the NPRM process. As CASA will issue the NPRM in October, all parties will be able to fully participate in the regulation making process ensuring a fair and balanced outcome.17:27:007537O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I thank the minister for her comments and for displaying the same expertise in this matter as I have. In these matters, we all rely on the advice we have in the positions that we take. In relation to the argument about the use of the factor calibrated airspeed, I am advised that the new Australian experimental category does not in fact call for calibrated airspeed. So it seems that there is a discrepancy between the regulation in this case and the Australian experimental category. I am also advised that the Canadian standard for ultralights, which I am told is TP 10141E, uses indicated airspeed not calibrated airspeed. So it is not as if there is a common international approach with which we are out of step but rather some differences.I stress that there was a strong view that proper consultation had not taken place and that for that reason the opposition was of the view that it would be better that that take place before these changes are implemented, given what we were advised will be the significant implications of the measures on the community affected, that is, the ultralight community.It has been argued to us—and I am not in a position where I have statistics to contest this—that for ultralight pilots it is true that the requirements as to training and qualification are less but that there is formalised training of ultralight pilots, which was introduced in the mid-1980s, and that the accident rate has steadily improved until it is on par with general aviation. One always likes to see improvement and perfection in aviation—I guess we are entitled to seek that—but we would expect that in many cases that is not going to be achieved, due to factors such as weather and human error.It is argued by the Ultralight Federation that current ultralight accident statistics show that stalling as a causal factor is virtually a non-event. Therefore, if we do in fact disallow this regulation we are not blocking a measure which has, on the face of it, significant short-term consequences. If indeed, as the minister says, there is a process about to commence in relation to the review of all regulations, one would have thought that this matter could be rolled into that and dealt with at the same time—or indeed, if there is some other need to process it, this matter could be dealt with expeditiously before that matter commences. There have been on the record now a number of opinions from the affected aviation community, and the opinion of the department has been laid out before the parliament. One would have thought that in this case a disallowance might proceed without causing any undue problems.17:32:007537Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—by leave—I do not know that I am helping you very much, but you mentioned experimental aircraft, and I am informed that by definition experimental aircraft do not have specified standards. And you are right in your comments about Canada using IAS, but the United States, France, UK, Italy, Germany, et cetera use the CAS unit, and it would seem very sensible that Australia should harmonise with the major aviation nations, which are united in their acceptance of CAS. I hope that contributes to the greater knowledge of us all. Question put: That the motion (Senator Mackay's ) be agreed to.17:37:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)35Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Greig, B. A. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. 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.29Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Coonan, H. *Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E.Bourne, V. Heffernan, W.Denman, K. J. Parer, W. R.Gibbs, B. Crane, W.Murphy, S. M. Chapman, H. G. P.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous753817:41:007538Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I move business of the Senate motion No. 2, standing in my name:That—(1) The Senate directs that each senator provide to the President, and the President present to the Senate, on or before the tenth day of sitting after the passage of this resolution, a certification, signed by the senator, that the senator is, to the best of the senator's knowledge, qualified to serve in the Senate under section 44 of the Constitution, together with documentary proof that the senator is not subject to the disability referred to in paragraph 44(i) of the Constitution. (2) For the purpose of paragraph (1), the documentary proof is:(a) a copy of a birth certificate indicating that the senator was born in Australia and a certification signed by the senator that the senator has not subsequently been a citizen of another country; or(b) if the senator was not born in Australia or has ever been a citizen of another country, documentation indicating that the senator has taken all reasonable steps to renounce any foreign nationality or citizenship.One man's loss is another man's gain, as the saying goes. I am standing here today because of another person's misfortune, that person being Heather Hill. Heather Hill has unfortunately been the first senator-elect to be disqualified by the High Court, for the sin of not renouncing her British citizenship before nominating for the 1998 federal election. It is ironic that Heather Hill was deemed to have an allegiance to a foreign power even though she has lived here most of her life and her husband and children are Australian. Despite her many public affirmations of patriotism and loyalty to this country, she was disqualified.It would appear by their actions that some members of the federal parliament have satisfied the letter of the law in regard to section 44(i) and so in fond theory are loyal and patriotic, but in practice their actions would appear to undermine our Constitution, our national sovereignty and the integrity of our federal system of government. Yet they have not been challenged under section 44.I do not blame the High Court for finding that Britain is now a foreign power, although I was surprised at the court's decision; I blame the Labor Party for passing the Australia Act in 1986 and I blame the coalition for not repealing the Australia Act when it had the chance to do so. There are people who caused Heather Hill to lose her seat; it was not the High Court, which was only fulfilling its constitutional role. But I say to those people who tried to knock One Nation out of the Senate that they have failed. I say to those people who tried to knock Heather Hill out of politics that they also have failed. I am pleased to say that not only is Heather Hill present in this place today to witness this historic event but she will continue to play an important role in Australian politics for the foreseeable future. To those people who targeted Heather Hill while ignoring the other politicians suspected of ineligibility I say that they are hypocrites. Actions such as this often have unforeseen consequences, and I am sure that the people who orchestrated the removal of Heather Hill would not have foreseen the events that may be precipitated by the moving of this motion today.From time to time, the qualifications and eligibility of various members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to serve have been questioned. The High Court has decided that Britain is now a foreign power. As a result of that decision, people believe that there have been in the past members of the federal parliament who sat while ineligible, and people believe that there may be members and senators who are now sitting while ineligible. This has resulted in considerable consternation and frustration, as many people regard the practice of politicians sitting in the federal parliament while ineligible to be a flouting of our Constitution.The only way a member of the public can pursue the matter is to challenge the eligibility of the person in the High Court, but the cost in terms of time and money is large, and very few people to date have exercised this option. There is another way to challenge the eligibility of a senator to serve that does not involve the courts, results in a minimum cost and does not take much time, that is, by moving a motion concerning their qualification to serve under section 58 of the standing orders of the Senate. Heather Hill ran foul of section 44 of the Constitution and paid the price. Now it is time for the senators who swore allegiance to Australia on 9 August and those senators already sworn in to demonstrate to the Australian people that we are one nation with one set of rules for all. This motion must take precedence over government and general business of the day and must be either agreed to by the Senate or fail. If the Senate agrees to this motion, then the Australian people will know that all senators are qualified for service under section 44(1) of our Constitution for the first time in Australia's history. If the Senate disagrees with this motion, then suspicion and acrimony can only increase. Those senators who oppose this motion—and I sincerely hope that there will not be any—obviously have something to hide and will have to answer to the Australian people.17:48:007539Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The Labor opposition will be opposing the motion that has been moved by Senator Harris. We will not be playing One Nation's games in this chamber on this occasion or—let me say through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to Senator Harris—on any other occasion. We have a situation here where, if the One Nation party has any evidence that any senator in this chamber is incapable of holding office as a senator by virtue of disqualification under section 44 of the Constitution, then someone has to put up. Let us have the evidence. If they have the evidence, a senator or senators can be challenged through the appropriate channels. That can be done by any Australian citizen. If they do not have the evidence, as far as the opposition is concerned there is no issue.Of course we would acknowledge that all senators are bound by both the Constitution and the electoral laws in this regard. I think that senators on all sides of the chamber take these laws very seriously—they take these obligations very seriously. I certainly can say that we do in the Labor Party. I have no doubt that other political parties and other senators represented in this chamber do also.Apparently, a One Nation candidate did not take these matters seriously and apparently the One Nation party feels on this issue that it has been unfairly singled out. The truth of the matter is that it is not the first at all. As we know, in Australian politics those are the breaks. If you fail to do your homework—as is the case with Ms Hill—you make a mistake—a big one—and you get caught out, tough. That is the way it works. There have been enough experiences and enough examples in this country over recent years for any candidate to take these matters very seriously indeed.We will have no part of what I think is a pretty half-baked, dubious and perhaps ill-conceived procedural device that is proposed today. The fact is that a member of the One Nation party and a member of the staff of the new One Nation senator, Senator Harris, was challenged about her compliance with section 44 of the Constitution. Those are the facts. That challenge was upheld by the High Court. Apparently, Ms Hill is unhappy about that. Senator Harris is absolutely delirious, because it is not as if he stood aside to allow Ms Hill to come back into the chamber after these matters had been regularised.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—No, definitely not.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Senator Ray, in a serious interjection, agrees with me on that important point. But, does that give Ms Hill and Senator Harris, her unlikely boss, the right to come into this chamber with a motion like this and effectively accuse every other senator of the same offence until they prove their innocence on this issue? That is what this motion does—guilty until proven inno cent on this particular issue. I do not think it does give Ms Hill and Senator Harris that right. It is absolutely outrageous for Senator Harris and the party that he represents to seek to abuse the procedures of this place just to vent Ms Hill's spleen.It is a bit of a nerve to proceed with a motion like this when only last week in the Queensland Supreme Court we had Justice Roslyn Atkinson say this about the 1997 decision by the Queensland Electoral Commission to register the One Nation party and its validity:After reviewing the decision of the Commission, I am satisfied that the decision to register Pauline Hanson's One Nation under the Electoral Act 1992 was induced by fraud or misrepresentation.That was Judge Atkinson's judgment. We have the Queensland Supreme Court ruling that the One Nation registration was induced by fraud or misrepresentation. Perhaps it may be just as reasonable to have a motion here asking Senator Harris to explain his party's actions. But that would not be appropriate, in my view. The only explaining to do is what Senator Harris has to explain to Ms Hill—why he has the seat and she does not have the seat; why he decided, after Ms Hill's eligibility had been regularised, to sit on.We have a real little internal dog fight going on here, and the opposition is not going to have any part of that sort of stunt—and it has been a stunt from the very beginning. Who could forget the dramatic press conference that was called by the newly appointed Senator Harris on the day that senators were sworn in? There they were up in the press gallery holding their breath and wondering what the dramatic announcement was going to be. Do you know what it was? That Senator Harris was going to move this motion in the Senate. Hold the front page! What a dramatic development: a new Senator is going to move a motion in the Senate and the Senate is going to determine what its view might be on this particular matter!We know that Senator Harris has had his arm twisted up behind his back by the aggrieved Ms Hill. We know that Ms Hill wants Senator Harris's seat. We know that Senator Harris has decided to stick in and not budge. He will be in here like a barnacle as long as he can, and Ms Hill can like it or lump it. Everyone knows that is the case. Senator Harris ought to do a little better in using the time he has in this place on behalf of the people that he now represents. He could do a lot better than just becoming a mouthpiece for his staffer, Ms Hill, who has forced him to take this particular action. He could do an awful lot better than lending his name to stunts like this. As far as the opposition is concerned, we will have no part of it on this or any other occasion.17:58:007541Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I speak on behalf of the government on this motion and say that the government will not have any part of this stunt, either. There is a considerable degree of history to this whole issue. It is a shame that Senator Harris comes in here clearly without any knowledge of that history. That is not to be harsh on Senator Harris, but I would have thought that, when he raises matters such as this, it would rest with him to find out what it is all about. The Constitution provides very clearly:Any person who—(i) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power . . . or is a subject or a citizen of a foreign power . . .is disqualified from being chosen or of sitting as a member of parliament. It is crystal clear. Senator Harris mentioned in his contribution to the Senate that Mrs Hill's misfortune is his good fortune. In response to Senator Harris's statement about misfortune, I have to say that I do not believe it is any misfortune at all. It is purely and simply an inability to read the documentation that is provided to every candidate prior to nomination for the election.If there is somehow a misfortune about someone being disqualified prior to entry, think what a gross misfortune it must be to people like former Senator Robert Wood, an Independent New South Wales senator, who was here for some time and then ruled ineligible. Look at someone like Phil Cleary from Victoria, who was in the House of Representatives for quite some time before being ruled ineligible. And there are other circumstances that surround all of these things. They were not looked upon as being someone who was unfortunate in the way in which they were removed from the parliament. It happened to be a crystal clear case of their not abiding by the Constitution.I cannot understand why Senator Harris comes in here and says that there is something that we all have to prove when in fact we are the people who have read the documentation that has been provided and Mrs Hill has not. That just happens to be a statement of fact. It is not a case of trying to knock One Nation out of the Senate, as Senator Harris has claimed. Shock, horror: One Nation and its office holders have to abide by the law of the land, as does every other political party and individual. So why should Senator Harris be so indignant and come in here and say that we somehow have to prove that we are Australians? Such an attempt to cast a shadow over every senator and member really does warrant the old Australian phrase, `Either put up or zip up.' You cannot come in here and just lay accusations down without substantiating them.It is not often that I have to agree with something that Senator Faulkner says, but the press conference announcing this motion was a reflection, sadly, of the way One Nation treats this parliament and treats the whole institution of government. To hear on the morning that Senator Harris was sworn in that there was going to be a press conference given by Senator Harris and Mrs Hill that day of `national importance' really did become a bit of a farce, to put it very politely. There is nothing of national importance in this at all. So far as the present constitutional rule in section 44(i) is concerned, the government thinks the constitutional and statutory framework is quite satisfactory to ensure that people do not stand for election if they are disqualified. So what is the problem that Senator Harris has got? The government believes that the Constitution and the Commonwealth laws already provide an adequate framework for ensuring that members of the Commonwealth parliament are not disqualified under that section of the Constitution. The law which applies to dual citizenship of members of parliament is perfectly clear. The Australian Electoral Commission, as I said before, gives candidates plenty of warning about it, and it is absurd for One Nation, for Mrs Hill or for Senator Harris—and I am sure, as is the opposition, that this all comes from Mrs Hill and not from Senator Harris—to say that they are incapable of heeding all the warnings and therefore they have to somehow be forgiven. Then to come in here and to make a proposal that people prove they are not citizens of a foreign country is even more outrageous. What we would do there is actually reverse the onus of proof. What is Senator Harris trying to do? I think it is quite bizarre.The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 sets out the qualifications which candidates for election to the Commonwealth parliament must satisfy. The act requires candidates for election to the Senate and the House of Representatives to consider whether they are qualified to be elected. I want to state quite clearly what the process is. When a person is nominated for election to the parliament, the person must declare in the nomination paper that he or she is qualified under the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth to be elected. That is the candidate's responsibility and nobody else's. The finger cannot be pointed at anybody else saying, `They didn't do it.' If a person is disqualified, it is the person who signed the nomination form who simply has to point the finger back at themselves and say, `I didn't do it.'The Australian Electoral Commission provides an information kit to candidates for election. Let us talk specifically about the election of 1998, last year, when Mrs Hill was supposedly elected. The kit for that federal election drew candidates' attention to the disqualification in section 44(i) of the Constitution and it informed candidates that dual citizenship could be a ground for disqualification if candidates had not taken all reasonable steps to renounce dual citizenship before nomination. The kit included advice on renunciation procedures for various countries, including the United Kingdom. So there is hardly any claim that anyone can make who has got half a wit about them that they were unprepared or given insufficient or inadequate information. There is already an adequate mechanism for ensuring that candidates satisfy the requirements for eligibility. It directs candidates' attention to this issue and requires them to consider whether they meet statutory and constitutional qualifications. If the candidate does not do that, that is not the fault of the Senate. These are matters that, without question, are best considered by the candidates themselves, as it is only they who possess the information that is required to be put on the nomination form and it is only they who sign that nomination form.The election of a person who is disqualified from being elected because of section 44(i) of the Constitution can also be challenged in court proceedings, as has now been demonstrated by Mrs Hill's case. So there is no point in crying foul after the event. Therefore, the government considers that these mechanisms ensure that dual citizenship issues arising in relation to members of parliament can be dealt with adequately and it does not believe that any parliamentary surveillance is necessary or that any stunts are necessary. Let us face it: that is all that this is. This is purely and simply yet again another One Nation publicity stunt, nothing more and nothing less. It is totally and utterly unnecessary and is just simply wasting the time of the Senate.18:08:007542Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The nub of the problem with Senator Harris's motion is that it really reverses the onus of proof; that is what is wrong with it. But I must say that in some sense, as he is representing such a xenophobic party, to see him have the broadness of mind to try to introduce the French judicial system into Australia or into the Senate's procedures is at least refreshing. One of the more intriguing parts I have found, from listening to the press conference the other day, is that Senator Harris and his staff member have a secret list. They waved the list around and said, `Here is a list of suspects.' The press asked them to table the list of suspects but they did not. I must say that I thought I had gone in a time machine back 45 or 50 years and was listening to the junior senator from Wisconsin, who also had a variety of secret lists. That is really the point: if Senator Harris has suspects, he should name them.Senator Harris, if you think there is a senator sitting around here or a member of the House of Representatives who is not properly qualified, name them. Put your finger in the pencil grinder, have a go and name them! Of course, Senator Harris or any other Australian citizen can take the qualifications of a senator or a member to the Court of Disputed Returns. Indeed, Senator Harris has one other advantage: he can use this chamber to refer matters to the Court of Disputed Returns, not a right accorded to the average citizen. Indeed, this chamber at any stage can send a matter to the Court of Disputed Returns, notwithstanding anything that is in the Electoral Act that prescribes timing or in any other way restricts rights. It is an unrestricted right and it is a right that has been used in the past.Senator Webster was sent off to the Court of Disputed Returns on a matter of office of profit under the Crown and Senator Woods was sent off—by me, as it happens, by way of a resolution but with the support of the Senate—because he was not an Australian citizen. Senator Ferris almost made it there. This place carried a conditional motion and Senator Ferris—basically, I think, on advice from some of us implicitly—adopted the technique of resigning to get over the offence that may have occurred and then being reappointed.So it is not unheard of for this chamber to refer a matter of qualification to the Court of Disputed Returns but it always does that on the basis of some evidence—and we do not want to reverse the onus of proof. What next are we going to have to get up and declare? Are we all going to have to get up and declare our sexual preference, whether we are vegetarians, what our religious view is or whether we have ever once in our life imbibed a controlled substance?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You didn't inhale.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Sounds like fun.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—It is fun in some categories but not in others. The basic point is that we do not have to prove, other than by giving our word, that we are properly here. If we are improperly here, it is up to someone else to prove it. Not only is it up to someone else to prove it; they can put some of their money up to prove it, just to test themselves.I will tell you one thing that did not surprise me. Senator Faulkner alluded to the fact that if Senator Harris were fair dinkum about this he would step aside for Mrs Hill. Several journos rang me at the time this went to the court and I said, `I don't know what the result will be but I will bet you any money you like that, if Senator-elect Hill gets knocked out, the number two on the ticket will not stand aside.'I can recall the Woods case in 1988-89. Unfortunately he was in this chamber when it went against him in an afternoon. It was 4 o'clock and he came across and said, `I'm sorry I lost the court case but the number two on the ticket will step aside and I will be back here Monday.' I said, `Good luck. I am really pleased for you, Robert.' I got to the Ansett lounge 20 minutes later and Irina Dunn had left three phone messages for me, as the minister in charge of parliamentary and ministerial services, wondering when she could move into her new office. I just said, `Thank you, Irina, for re-establishing my faith in human nature because for a while I was disillusioned.'I am not critical of Senator Harris for not stepping aside for the disqualified Senator-elect Hill. I suspect that, frankly, he will be a better senator than Mrs Hill; I think he has probably got some better qualities than his current senior staffer. Nevertheless, Senator Harris, if you wanted to rectify this position overall, it would take just one page. Type it up or I will get it typed for you, if you like. Give me a copy of your letterhead—`I, Senator Harris, resign'—and then the Queensland One Nation Party could send Senator-elect Hill down here because she would now be qualified.Honourable senators interjecting—UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Colleagues must understand that there may not be a state based One Nation Party but that, because of the federal registration rules, the federal party maintain their registration. But what all of this reflects is a lack of attention to detail, and in many ways it is just desserts. If One Nation take a simplistic view of politics and argue that there are simplistic solutions, then that is what One Nation live by. But that very simplicity means they cannot get their candidate properly qualified before a Senate election and they cannot properly register their political party before a state election and may, in the process, forfeit half a million dollars in public funding. That, if you like, is the penalty that applies to an amateur political party that prides itself on its amateurishness.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Isn't it a company?UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—As Senator Sherry said, it is a company, and they simply have to pay the price for that. Senator Harris quoted himself from the press conference. Let me quote him again:Any senator who opposes my motion—and I obviously hope there will not be any—is obviously trying to hide something and will have to answer to the press and the Australian people.I have to say that that is a slimy tactic in this place. People will oppose motions. They are not trying to hide something. They oppose them out of principle; they oppose them because they think they are a stunt. It is very poor form to accuse senators in this place of voting against a motion because they are trying to hide something. It is simply not true. If you have to vote for every resolution that has this implicit blackmail in it, then we will have these stunts day in, day out.I did watch that press conference, and I thought that we as senators were diminished by it. I thought it was a rather sad press conference. Apart from the build-up that was not delivered on, frankly I found it very sad to see a senator sitting there being interrupted and overridden by a staff member. Maybe in that one sense I am an elitist, but I do believe in the pre-eminence of the senator as opposed to the staffer. I hope that, within that, I accord a whole range of rights to staffers but not one of sitting at a press conference telling me what to do and correcting me in front of all those journos. That is not a very good look for the Senate, or for anyone else for that matter. Let us get down to the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem is that Senator-elect Hill was disqualified. I do not think that Senator-elect Hill deliberately put herself at risk. I do not think she knew that you not only had to have Australian citizenship but also had to renounce. I do not think she knew that. I do not think she consciously kept her UK citizenship, but one of the questions that should be asked of someone who is so opposed to other people coming into this country—and I have heard her being interviewed on this subject—is: why didn't she take out citizenship? She was in this country for well over 20 years and qualified for citizenship for 20 years and did not take it out.Why did she take out Australian citizenship? So she could run for the Ipswich seat in the state election. That is the only reason why. I know she was part of that unique band of people who were born in the UK and who still have voting rights within Australia, but it does not show much commitment that, when you are eligible to become an Australian citizen for more than 20 years, you only do so to run for parliament. Even so, I would not be critical except for the fact that we have heard a whole range of racist and xenophobic views out of the then Senator-elect Hill—criticising others when she herself, the great patriot, would not take out citizenship for more than two decades.As Senator Knowles indicated, following the Hill case the qualifications in terms of citizenship and renunciation are quite explicit. I would not even try to mislead the Senate to say that I was surprised by the 1992 decision on Cleary—not the office-for-profit part but the issue of citizenship and the renouncing of it. Since that became clear, both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party prior to every election meticulously go through all their candidates' biographies and check to see that they are qualified. I know that happens on both sides of politics. It is tedious and it is time consuming, but it is done so that we do not face these particular situations. That is something that One Nation is going to have to do on future occasions when it thinks it may have a successful candidate. The motion today is in part a bit of revenge and in part a bit of grandstanding, but it is flawed because it requires the reverse onus of proof.18:19:007545Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats in relation to Senator Harris's motion, his first substantive motion that has been debated in this chamber. As I am sure all senators would know, the Democrats confronted One Nation fairly directly in a political sense leading up to, and as part of, the federal election campaign last year. The results having been declared and the new Senate having taken its place, I indicate on behalf of the Democrats that, given that this is the first substantive motion that the One Nation representative has moved, we are quite happy to consider everything that Senator Harris puts forward on its individual merits. Having done so with this motion, I concur with the comments of previous speakers. The Democrats do not believe this is a motion worthy of support. For reasons similar to those of others, it does in many ways put up a reverse onus of proof.The point that has not been made very much to date is that every senator who was elected to this place—which is most of us in this chamber; I was an appointee, but most were elected—has to sign on their nomination form that they are, to the best of their knowledge, qualified to serve in the Senate under section 44 of the Constitution. So they have already signed documentation indicating that they are qualified.Heather Hill obviously signed the same piece of paper and was mistaken in her belief, which I assume, like Senator Ray, was a genuine belief. I do not think that anyone would have any motivation for deliberately trying to deceive in that regard, but it is difficult to believe, given the issues that have appeared many times over the last decade or so—not just Phil Cleary's case but also Senator Robert Woods' more specifically and a number of other High Court rulings in relation to dual citizenship—that people who thought they had a serious chance of being elected, and obviously Heather Hill was one of those, would not have been aware of that particular requirement, particularly given that her own citizenship was raised as an issue just a few months previously in the Queensland state election, which I well recall, being from that state.Virtually every senator here has already signed a nomination form. Even those who are appointed, such as me, have to sign a piece of paper verifying that we are eligible to take up and to hold the office of senator. As others have said, it is clearly unnecessary to introduce a motion, virtually by way of a stunt, to affirm what all of us have already affirmed. It is unfortunate that One Nation has seen fit to cast aspersions on the eligibility of a number of parliamentarians without any proof whatsoever, beyond vaguely mentioning that some of them were born overseas or had parents who were born overseas or something like that. One Nation was quite happy to cast aspersions on a number of parliamentarians, including a couple of my Democrat colleagues. Yet, as Senator Ray said, a mechanism is available to us in this place whereby we do not have to go through the expense of High Court challenges. We can raise these matters in this chamber. The chamber can then decide whether or not to refer a matter—which, as Senator Ray outlined, has been done a number of times in the past.I would assume that, before the Senate would consider seriously any such suggestion, the crucial requirement would be that evidence be put forward that seeks to demonstrate some indication of doubt about the eligibility of a particular senator. Clearly, despite a willingness to make vague assertions that some people might not be eligible or—as Senator Harris said in his contribution today—that anyone who votes against this motion must have something to hide, despite these very general attempts to blacken everybody, no attempt whatsoever has been made to put forward even the vaguest evidence. Until evidence is put forward in relation to any senator, I am certainly not particularly interested in the Senate spending any time on a measure such as this.This measure is not necessary. Plenty of other processes are already in place. If it is not a stunt, this is an attempt at a final dummy spit by Heather Hill as a consequence of her disqualification. I can understand her annoyance. I imagine that it would be rather annoying to experience that. I do not blame her for feeling a bit annoyed because I suspect I would be annoyed as well in that situation. I met Robert Woods when, some time down the track, as some people may not know, he drifted into the Democrats. He was a bit irritated about what happened to him too—and he was probably even more irritated that he did not get his seat back afterwards. These things happen.It is ironic that a party like One Nation—which, more than most, likes to go on about the sanctity of the Constitution and our founding fathers and the importance of upholding the Constitution—should make such complaints about the High Court upholding a basic requirement of the Constitution. While Senator Ray said he would not like to predict what the outcome of the High Court might have been in relation to this, I would certainly have been extremely surprised if there was any outcome other than the one that occurred.From the Democrats' point of view, we do not believe this motion is necessary. I should probably not impugn too nastily what Senator Harris's motives might have been in bringing it forward, but I suggest that, if One Nation does have evidence about the validity of any senators in relation to their requirements to serve in this place under the Constitution, it present that evidence to this chamber in a serious way. I will certainly happily consider it in that context, but not in a motion such as this.18:26:007546Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—As I have told Senator Harris, I will not be supporting the motion for, amongst other things, the reasons that have been put by all the contributing senators who have so far opposed the motion. One of the problems is the reversal of the onus of proof. There is not a precedent for this sort of motion before the parliament—or not one that I could find, anyway. I am concerned that it could be followed up by a wide variety of motions which require members of parliament to attest to their propriety without there having been any evidence that they had acted with impropriety. Surely that is not the way for us to proceed in a parliament in which, as has been said by previous speakers, members have been required to sign something to say that they have abided by constitutional requirements. In effect, through taking the oath or affirmation when entering this place, they have repeated the assurance that they have been properly elected.However, I draw to the chamber's attention the need for us to deal with this matter. There seems to be almost a herd instinct to avoid changing parts of constitutions which can lead, inadvertently or otherwise, to members of parliament being trapped. The Tasmanian constitution act requires amending as it has a glitch in it. Several MPs have fallen prey to that. They have had to get retrospective legislation through the parliament—a very unseemly way of proceeding—to have their seats validated. We are not in too different a situation here. Both Senate and joint committees have recommended to parliament that section 44 be amended.Senators will be aware that I have legislation before the Senate now to give the opportunity to the people of Australia to amend the Constitution so that the something like seven million Australians who are currently denied the right to stand for parliament would gain that right. I will be lobbying the Senate to allow that referendum opportunity. It is simply not good enough for the parliament to allow the matter to drift. In that sense, the positive follow-through I can give to Senator Harris is that I will be pushing to have that legislation, which was debated last November, brought before the Senate again for debate in the near future—and I will need the good offices of the Labor Party for that—so that we can get a resolution on it. I would have liked the matter put to the people at the 6 November referendum but, if not then, it should be at the next election. That said, I will not be supporting the motion but I think action is needed and, in that sense, Senator Harris has brought before the chamber a matter which we cannot put to rest at this moment and in this way.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:007546Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—It was not my intention to speak on this motion, at least initially, until I became somewhat concerned by the approach adopted by the One Nation Party in identifying and attempting to infer some wrongdoing by those of us not born in Australia. I am one of those people. Before I commence my contribution, I want to make a couple of comments about the issue of dual nationality and alleged allegiance to a foreign power.This concept is very outdated and outmoded in a modern world. From my knowledge of history, which is an interest of mine, the issue of dual nationality is a medieval concept that derived, at least initially, from the time when William the Conqueror, as he is known, who was the Duke of Normandy, invaded England. He had kingship in his own right of what was then England and he held dukeship in Normandy, owing allegiance to the king of France. That is where the concept of dual nationality originally arose. As a consequence of the various struggles that took place between the English and the French crown, the custom and practice emerged in British common law that a citizen of England and, ultimately, the United Kingdom could not owe allegiance to any other crown.I think the concept is outmoded and outdated. Irrespective of whether a public official elected to this place is born in Australia or has dual nationality, the theory is that they have some split allegiance. They are considered to have some allegiance to a foreign power because of where they were born and, therefore, they are presumably some sort of national security risk. The concept is totally outmoded and irrelevant in the modern world and should not exist. Nevertheless, the High Court, in its latest decision in respect of senator-elect Hill, has made three decisions on this issue. The law is now very clear in respect of dual nationality.In respect of my own circumstances, I was born in England at Kingston-on-Thames on 19 November 1955.RF4COOKSenator Cook—A good year.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It was a good year. My mother was English and my father was Australian. My father was working in England at the time. Unfortunately, I came along at the wrong time because my father had wanted to return to Australia in the earlier part of 1955. With my mother expecting me, they had to postpone the trip and set sail about six months after I was born. So I have grown up in Australia and spent most of my life in Tasmania, where my father settled in late 1956. I do not think one could detect much of an English accent; perhaps there is a slight Tasmanian accent.I have lived all my life here. I have lived longer in Australia than my brother. He was born two years later. I do not consider myself any less Australian than my brother. On reaching the age of 18, I took out Australian citizenship, not because I was interested in standing for parliament at that time but because I believed I was an Australian through and through and that part of the commitment to your country involves taking out Australian citizenship. In 1990, I was elected to the Senate.In 1992, there was a case involving a member of the other place, Mr Cleary, who was elected to the seat of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. In the case of Mr Cleary, I do not believe it was the issue of dual nationality; I think it was office of profit under the crown. There were a number of other candidates who the High Court determined had dual nationality. The High Court made it very clear in 1992 that if you held dual nationality and it were practical to do so, you had to take every reasonable step to renounce the citizenship of the country in which you were born if that country had that provision within its constitution or law.So there were quite a number of us in late 1992 who, after that High Court decision, appeared to have dual citizenship. I did not realise that I was still a citizen of the United Kingdom, having taken out Australian citizenship. Nevertheless, that is what the High Court determined. I went down to the British High Commission and made some inquiries about renunciation. Apparently, there is an act of British parliament for the renunciation of UK citizenship. I picked up the form and filled it in. I think I paid $50. It has recently gone up somewhat, as I understand it. I understand that it is now about $250. Obviously, there has been a bit of a money making exercise occurring with the dual citizenship decisions.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—Mrs Thatcher introduced it.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It was probably Margaret Thatcher. Certainly it is not a bad money-spinner for the British High Commission with the number of people who have been renouncing their British citizenship recently, but it was only $50 back at the end of 1992. Channel Nine were quite interested in a number of us and they got me on film carrying out my renunciation. As I say, that happened to quite a number of people as a result of the Cleary case that was determined before the High Court in 1992. I have subsequently been re-elected as a senator and I am very confident that I qualify.I take objection to the way in which this issue has been promoted by One Nation. My name, along with a number of others, has been put into press releases inferring that we have done something wrong, when I certainly have not, and I am certainly not aware of any of my other parliamentary colleagues having done anything wrong.As a result of the 1992 High Court decision the Australian Labor Party put into place effective mechanisms to ensure that, firstly, we were Australian citizens and, secondly, we did not hold dual citizenship, amongst a range of other criteria to be satisfied in order to qualify for preselection for the Australian Labor Party. I am aware that the Liberal Party put similar mechanisms in place at that time. I noticed that when I last stood for election, the Australian Electoral Commission had improved their declaration and made the position very clear as a result of that High Court case in 1992. If you are standing for parliament, if you have an effective political organisation run by competent operators, and if you bother to read the nomination forms and the kit that comes with it, it is not as though you would not know that this is the process.As I said in my introductory remarks, I think the concept of dual nationality and somehow owing allegiance to a foreign power is an outmoded concept in the modern world. To that extent, I understand the disappoint ment that senator-elect Hill has gone through. But that can not excuse the sheer incompetence of the One Nation leadership in the way that they handled their preselection processes. Any organisation that is structured in the way that One Nation is—and we have had some recent exposure of the way in which One Nation is structured and operated in Queensland, and our leader, Senator Faulkner, referred to that—where a political party, or rather a political company, is so structured that it is run by the three shareholders—Mr Oldfield, Mr Ettridge and Ms Hanson—must be considered incompetent. They are the three that run the show, that run the company, that run the political party—the triumvirate that took it upon itself to make sure that it had total control and total power over One Nation. As I say, that has been reinforced by the recent decision of the Queensland Supreme Court—I think it was—in respect to its illegal registration.Over the past couple of years, Mr Oldfield and Mr Ettridge have touted themselves as political Machiavellis, but they fell down. Given the likelihood of the election of a One Nation Senate candidate in the polling at the time, I am sure that this triumvirate determined, or had a very significant say, in who the One Nation candidate was going to be to head the Senate ticket in Queensland. It just basically came down to incompetence.I have some sympathy for senator-elect Hill, who obviously put her trust in this triumvirate, but the sheer incompetence of these three should be noted. Not only did they organise the structure of the party so that they ran the whole show, but they also openly boasted about their intention to operate it as a three-person operation and they put up the pretence that it was a democratic organisation. So really, the motion we have before us today, obviously, as all the other speakers have said, is offensive in the sense that it infers that a number of us—and I am amongst those who were born overseas—have done something wrong when we have not really. The blame should be sheeted home to the basic incompetence of the three who formed the leadership of the One Nation party.I concur with the comments made by other contributors in this debate. There are other mechanisms for dealing with this matter, by a resolution of the Senate and referral of any one of us to the High Court. Regrettably for senator-elect Hill, she got caught out, as I say, by the lack of professionalism of the leadership of One Nation. They boasted about how good they were at the political process and that has now caught up with them.There is one other point I would like to make. In respect of senator-elect Hill, it was not as though this issue has only been a recent matter. One Nation says that they are innocent, that this is a grand conspiracy by the major parties, that the major parties are ganging up against them. Poor One Nation! Poor senator-elect Hill! That is the nature of the theme that, in part, One Nation has been running in respect to this issue and it is simply not true.The previous decision in the Wood case and the previous decision in respect of candidates in the Cleary matter—both went before the High Court—were well known and well publicised at the time. They were well publicised subsequently by the Electoral Commission and were available for any candidate to peruse had they bothered to read the material. Despite this having some publicity in the Queensland state election where senator-elect Hill was a candidate, the triumvirate Oldfield, Ettridge and Hanson apparently completely ignored it all. I did not realise until I made some inquiries today that senator-elect Hill was not even an Australian citizen. I can understand someone not being aware of renunciation procedures, but when you have been living in this country for a long time—20 years—boasting about your Australian nationalism, indeed openly promoting your attitude to migrants and your opposition to migration into this country, particularly from Asia, making that one of the central planks of your platform in the lead-up to an election and declaring just how Australian Australians should be, surely you should have Australian citizenship if you are running for election for any form of office in this country. Apparently, senator-elect Hill did not even qualify for that very basic and fundamental prerequisite of Australian citizenship.I conclude on the point that Senator Brown raised in the proposition that he has put forward of a referendum in respect of a question that would permit any person resident in Australia to run for political office. In other words, you could have been born overseas, not be an Australian citizen, and, if you hold dual citizenship, it should not matter. That is the proposition that Senator Brown wants to put to a referendum. I would put to Senator Harris: what would One Nation's position be on such a question? Are One Nation willing to endorse the proposition that anyone who is resident in Australia—regardless of nationality, regardless of citizenship or whether they hold dual citizenship—should be able to run for political office in this country? I would be interested to know what One Nation's attitude would be to such a proposition. I suspect that, six months ago, they would have been vehemently opposed to such a proposition. They would have argued that you had to be an Australian citizen, that you could not hold dual nationality, that you had to be dinky-di Aussie in order to stand for political office. That is what I think the position would have been six months ago. It may have changed in light of senator-elect Hill's experiences.Finally, I endorse the contributions of all the other senators who have spoken on this matter. I add that the triumvirate that run the so-called political party of One Nation have to take responsibility for this. They decided to run it as a company; they decided that they were the fountain of all political knowledge. They openly boasted of that, yet they failed in what is a very basic prerequisite in politics—that is, to at least know whether your candidates are eligible to run for office or not. And it is not as though they were not warned. I also take exception to the type of material that we have seen circulated recently, in which it is inferred that those amongst us who were born overseas have in some way done something wrong when we have not. My position is clear. It is on the public record. It has been on the public record since the end of 1992 and it attracted some publicity at that time. I am very confident that I have done the right thing by section 44. For the reasons that I have outlined and all the other reasons that have been spoken of in this chamber, I do not believe we should be supporting the proposition as moved by Senator Harris on behalf of One Nation.19:50:007550McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, it will not come as any surprise to you or anyone else in this chamber that I will be opposing this motion very vigorously. Two weeks ago, when this matter was of historical moment—you may remember the press conference—I was actually quite angry about what was going on and about the discriminatory practices of a certain political party being brought into a chamber such as this. Is there discrimination? I invite you to look at paragraph 2(a) and paragraph 2(b) of the motion. Can you see how this applies differently to those of us who were born in another country? If a motion such as this were carried, Australia would be a laughing stock to the rest of the world. I am very pleased that colleagues from all political parties have rejected this proposition. It will be interesting to hear the responses that will come back if the mover of the motion cares to respond to the argument that is being put forward.I was angry two weeks ago, but I am actually very sorry for the individuals now. I am very sorry that they are proceeding and persisting down this path. There is obviously something lacking if they continue to do so. They are making idiots of themselves. They are actually making gooses of themselves.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Geese!1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—No; gooses, Senator. I am sticking to that. I will quote later on from a press release that was issued by the One Nation Party on 25 June—a matter which I have spoken about in this place once before—headed, `Good for the goose and good for the gander'. If you say `geese', you are actually adding to it. `Gooses' it is going to be for the remainder of this particular speech.I feel sorry that in the two weeks that have elapsed the mover of the motion and the persons behind him have not done a little bit of research. They have not found out that this matter of the Constitution and its application is not a new matter at all. I got a mention in the press statement that I have just alluded to. They spelt my name wrongly and I am cranky about that. I spoke in this place and referred to some of the historical developments that previous speakers have referred to this afternoon. One was the case of former Senator Wood who was replaced by Senator Dunn. Those cases focused the minds of 76 senators and that of our political parties on the necessities of standing for the very high office that we hold. That was way back in 1988, probably before she had learned to fry fish and chips, probably before she had any sort of interest in politics, other than the bitterness and the bile that has been building over 30 years.It was brought more into focus in 1992 with Phil Cleary, that great football commentator. He is probably more suited to that role than the role he carried out in the parliament—a nice bloke who is very self-opinionated. His case went off to the High Court of Australia. Irrespective of the results one way or another, we as members of parliament had an interest in that case. We particularly followed the judgment. Our political fortunes ride on decisions like that, so we become very aware of decisions of the High Court and the qualifications for office.My first experience with it, which I alluded to in the speech I made on 25 June, was way back during the 1987 campaign when a certain lawyer in Sydney drew attention to the fact that he was going to take us all to the High Court—`us all' being the senators of the day. My political party, the Australian Labor Party, took notice of what was going on. They took steps then to alert each and every one of us who were serving in parliament at that point—this is going back 12 years—that we should get our affairs in order to make sure we were qualified to remain in office and, equally importantly, for those who were contesting the following election in 1990, to get our affairs in order if we were born in another country or could be shown to hold allegiance to another power.On our side of the parliament we had Lionel Bowen as the Attorney-General—the great Lionel Bowen, whose evidence we heard last week at a Senate committee, and it was a thrill to see him again. He provided advice not only to members on this side of the chamber—we were on that side of the chamber at that particular time—but to a range of members of parliament who were not born in Australia. This is going way, way back. In my case, I have since contested the 1990 election and got re-elected and I contested the 1996 election and got re-elected. Nobody challenged in the High Court whether or not I was qualified to hold office or that I had the right to it. I still have the right to it in this chamber. I was warned on 25 June this year in a press statement headed `Good for the goose—good for the gander'.We can all be a bit self-deprecating from time to time, but it is unusual that we put it in print to this extent. On this occasion, the goose was the leadership of One Nation, probably the failed candidate who made a goose of herself by nominating and not finding out what the rules were, and more importantly, not finding out what the laws were. The press release states:At least four federal members face legal proceedings to have them disqualified from Parliament because they are believed to hold dual nationality.The four members named were me from Western Australia; Peter Nugent, Liberal Party member for Aston; Alex Somlyay, Liberal member for Fairfax; and, Democrats Senator for WA, Andrew Murray. Since then we have heard of another secret list which has not yet been made public. We await the legal action. Everyone in this chamber knows that legal action of this nature has to go to the High Court of Australia, but legal action has not yet been started. I wonder why One Nation does not put its money where its mouth is. I wonder why way back in June, some two months ago, One Nation did not proceed with their challenge to each of the four individuals. Indeed, there are a lot more in this chamber and in the other place who were not lucky enough to be born in Australia. Why haven't they got on with it?Chuck Hong and Terry Sharples have proved that it is possible to take the action. They have put their money where their mouth is. They challenged Mrs Heather Hill, who had lived in Australia for over 20 years but had not bothered until she was interested in a political career after the formation of One Nation as a political party. She then took out Australian citizenship. Why didn't they follow it through? Why did we have the stunt of two weeks ago with the historic announcement which was a farce and could only be conducted by a goose? It is not a very flattering term, but actions speak louder than words. The challenge was issued publicly in a media release on 25 June and then we waited until 9 August to get a historic announcement which repeated what was said on 25 June.There are 76 senators in this place and 148 members of the House of Representatives. If they have got a doubt that any one of us is not serving—there is only one in this particular political party—they should go ahead and put their money where their mouth is. Put the taxpayers' money—that you got from the election campaigns in the various states and federally—where your mouth is. But no, they will not do it. They come back to a further farce now, after two weeks of thinking, and still seek to proceed with the motion. They come into the chamber and read a prepared speech. You do not take too much exception to new senators doing that. Because it was not claimed to be a first speech, there were some interjections—which were not taken, because we do not remove ourselves from the written word.We are in a state of high farce by pressing on with this motion and probably even going to a vote on the floor of the chamber. That is unfortunate. It is good in one way because it is going to be resoundingly beaten. But in another way it is using up the valuable time of the parliament of Australia, the governing house of this nation. I do not think we should be wasting our time in doing that.When I found out we had the luxury of another two weeks of preparing for this debate I intended to do some more research and get my birth certificate in order, and even my marriage certificates and divorce certifi cate and various other things to prove that I am who I am. But unfortunately other more important matters concentrated my mind, and the only thing I remembered before I left my home in Perth yesterday to come over here, as evidence to say I am who I am, was my passports. I grabbed my passports. And I do say that in the plural. I am not going to seek to table them, because I know that if you do table them you cannot get them back.I have two passports, and I know that that has caused some mention in the press statements. I have a blue covered passport and I also have a green covered passport. The green does not signify the fact that I once had a different green coloured passport from Ireland; that passport expired many years ago. The green coloured one I have now is an official passport, the official Australian passport; and the blue coloured one, to quell the excitement, is the normal Australian passport which you need to enter certain countries—as you, Mr Acting Deputy President Calvert, would know—or when you are travelling in a private capacity and not travelling in a government capacity.The fact that I have two passports does not mean a great deal at all, and certainly should not warrant the expenditure of funds in the High Court of Australia. I regret that I have not got the birth certificate. I was born almost 55 years ago, and I have been in this country almost 30 years. Half of that 30 years I have served in this parliament. I made a conscious decision to migrate to this country, and I have been grateful to the country ever since for allowing me to come here, settle here, rear a family here and earn a living here.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Nice to have you, Senator.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—Thank you, Senator McGauran.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You can go home now.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I am not so sure that they will have me. I have come here; I have settled. I waited quite a considerable time before I took out Australian citizenship. I did not take out Australian citizenship to enter the parliament, as some other people tried to do; I took it after my first holiday back home, which ended the homesickness for me. I realised what was left back there and what was here.With Australian citizenship, I entered the parliament. If One Nation, Mr Chuck Hong, Mr Terry Sharples or anyone else had challenged me post the 1984 election I might have found myself in that unfortunate position that Heather Hill found herself in. But the rules at that time were not as clear as they are now. We had not had those numbers of High Court decisions. I have mentioned Mr Turner in the 1987 campaign; I will mention the advice of Lionel Bowen following that. I have mentioned in this place before that some of us have to go back and relinquish allegiance to the country of our birth. It is not something that one does very lightly. It is not something you do for convenience, but you have to do it if you want to remain in the parliament. It was actually easier and cheaper for me to do it coming from the Republic of Ireland than it was, for example, for my colleague Senator George Campbell, who came from a different part of Ireland. It was more expensive for him to relinquish it, but he, like the rest of us, did relinquish his allegiance to the country of his birth. It is not something you do lightly. But if you live in this country, if you want to be part of this country, if you want to be part of the parliament and the governing of the nation, it is one of the things you do.In my first speech in this chamber, in the Old Parliament House, the provisional Parliament House, I mentioned in my speech in the address-in-reply how I had sworn allegiance on taking office. I put some qualifications on that allegiance at the time, but that oath of allegiance has been repeated on a number of occasions since then because this is the job that we have been elected to do.One Nation, Senator Harris or Mrs Hill may want to find out more than has already been put on the public record tonight and in previous speeches. I did not do the research on the previous speeches that I have made on this subject, but there have been many, including the public admission of having to relinquish my Irish citizenship. That is not something one does very lightly. But it has not made a tremendous amount of difference because it had never been—and I do not think it is now—my intention to go back and reside permanently in that country, and I am not so sure it is the wish of any of my children or their families to do so. But we still have right of entry, because we have a great relationship with that country, a relationship which will be further embellished this week with the visit of another parliamentary delegation from Ireland to this country.Strange that, prior to my coming into this place, there had never been a parliamentary delegation visit this country, and I think this is the fourth one in my almost 15 years of serving. There have also been some going back. I had the joyous occasion of being a member of the Australian parliament going back to Ireland in a parliamentary delegation. During that visit, I was representing Australia. In subsequent visits, using my title as senator for Western Australia, I was representing Australia.If One Nation, Senator Harris, Pauline Hanson, Heather Hill or anybody else want to do something more on the theme, you are quite welcome to do it. But this time, put your money where your mouth is. Do not engage in these cheap stunts that just waste the time of the parliament, that actually do very little for you in the public mind. It might appeal to sections of those racists in our community who are attracted to you as an organisation but, in terms of good government and in terms of serving Australia, it does very, very little. I am sorry it has actually come to a debate in the parliament. I hope that this will be the last time it does come to such a debate and we will not have to waste the time of the Senate again.20:09:007553Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—It has become quite apparent that this is a misconceived motion. It is a very interesting motion because it is aimed only at those senators who are presently in this chamber and aimed at them now. If One Nation were concerned about people who might be here in contravention of section 44 of the Constitution, it might well be expected that they would make this a motion that affects not only those people who are here now but those who are going to come in later parliaments. In other words, instead of just concentrating on the people who are now here, it would become a general proposition.The other thing that is misconceived about it is that I would have thought the proper time to work out whether a person was standing in accordance with section 44 of the Constitution was at the time of nominations rather than after the whole process has gone through. So I am not quite sure what the purpose of this particular motion is, except to have people say that they qualify in terms of section 44. May I say that the people who are presently in this chamber are people that are all, from my observation, dedicated to Australia. That has never been an issue, as far as I can see, from anybody in this chamber. There has been controversy across the floor and some quite harsh things done, but I can think of no instance while I have been here where any senator has acted other than in accordance with an allegiance to Australia.I think section 4(i) is correct. The founding fathers—unfortunately there were no `founding mothers' in those times—were right: if we are going to represent the people of Australia, we should not owe or purport to owe any allegiance to any other nation. We were a nation that during the 1890s debated coming together, mainly on the model of Inglis Clark, a great Tasmanian, as you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, and Sir Samuel Griffith from Queensland. They saw themselves as separate colonies coming together and forming a nation. I think this nation has done outstandingly well since then and has become known as a great nation around the earth—I say that advisedly—and that the people who have come here have served Australia well.It is disappointing to see a motion like this. Not only is the concept flawed but the attempt to carry out that concept is flawed as well for the reasons I have said. It is aimed at the wrong time. If you are going to have a thing like this, it should be aimed at the time when people stand. As has been pointed out again and again this evening, the law on this is well set out. Any dispute about a person's qualifications to stand and to sit in this chamber is a matter that the High Court decides and, in my view, properly so. It is a body that more than any other is likely to bring a dispassionate view of things, to listen to the evidence accurately and well and to ensure that fairness is done.Any issue as to the composition of the Senate is an important issue. Any issue as to who can stand here is an important one. The High Court has held, correctly so, that all states that are not part of Australia are foreign states—that is correct—and that history has gone to the point where the United Kingdom is a country separate from us but a country that we no doubt hold affection for. When I was born and when you, too, Mr Acting Deputy President, were born in Tasmania, we were British subjects. In 1948 we became Australian citizens and it has developed since then. That is properly so. The world develops. Institutions change and we must keep up with that.This motion will be defeated, and so it should. I do not know whether it is intended or not, but it certainly contains an inference that there may be some people in this chamber who would hide their eligibility to be here—that they would somehow be here when they are not entitled to. I think that is a slur on those who sit here. For that, together with the other reasons, this motion ought to be defeated.20:15:007554Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Pauline Hanson's One Nation has not cried foul on the decision of the High Court. We have not at any point in time made a statement that their judgment was anything other than as it should be under the Constitution. Pauline Hanson's One Nation has not at any time purported to have a list of any members who are ineligible. If the Senate or the senators have missed an issue in this debate, it is that they have the opportunity to put before the Australian people their eligibility. One of our senators raised the issue of discrimination between (a) and (b) in the motion. What that does is clearly set out the two instances and the differences between a person who is born in Australia and somebody who is born overseas. No other senator has drawn attention to the issue that a person born in Australia would be ineligible under section 44 if they had any allegiance to a foreign power. We could be Australian born and still ineligible under section 44.I have the greatest of respect for this chamber and for the Australian people. Senators now have the opportunity to respect both the Constitution and the Australian people and to confirm their eligibility. Senators have, on one hand, spent a considerable amount of time in debating the motion—and I commend them for their input in debating section 44 of the Constitution; on the other hand, they accuse Pauline Hanson's One Nation of wasting taxpayers' money in raising this standing order. Their input into the debate contradicts their claim that we are wasting the Senate's time. The Senate will be measurably better when senators refer to issues when debating and when they refrain from making personal attacks on individuals. The Senate will, in the eyes of the Australian people, be greatly improved for this protocol. I have the courage of my convictions and, within 10 days of this motion being put, I will table the documents I have requested of other senators. I commend to each other senator individually to consider doing the same.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—The question is that the motion moved by Senator Harris be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.8HCHARRISSenator Harris—Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like to have my yes vote on the motion recorded in Hansard .Bills7554s211755420:20:007554Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills7555r6467555Debate resumed.20:21:007555Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Before question time today, I was talking about the significant oversight in this legislation and the RFA process in relation to the plantation industry. In fact, the Democrats believe that this legislation, or the process, unfairly discriminates against the plantation industry. I was talking about the double-speak, if you like, to which the Australian community was being subjected with this process—the stated goal of the process being to develop internationally competitive forest based industries. Of course, the explanatory memorandum of the legislation says that it is intended to implement a national forest policy statement which has, as its stated goal, a transition from native forest exploitation to plantation harvesting.However, the only option considered in the RFAs is the disposal of the native forest resource, ignoring the fact that fully 75 per cent of Australia's sawn timber, wood panel and paper needs comes from plantations and recycling. The reality of the process is to perpetuate for as long as possible the most uneconomical and unproductive sector of the industry and to frustrate for as long as possible the promised move to plantations. At best this is illogical; at worst, an indefensible position for a responsible Senate or parliament to enshrine.The process of subsidy deserves examination in greater detail. In every single piece of information on the pricing of native forest logs and public plantation logs, the native forest logs of similar grade are always priced less—often much less—than plantation logs, even though the two parts of the industry compete in the same final market. Since one suspects that the accountants have done a better job of incorporating costs and returns into the price of the public plantation log, the clear implication is that the public resource of the native forest log is virtually being given away. That is a direct subsidy to the native forest industry and, in about 60 per cent of cases, a direct subsidy to the lowest productivity use of the log. It is also a direct subsidy to the woodchipping company and presumably, if the woodchipper takes only a normal rate of profit, a direct subsidy to the—usually—foreign consumer of chipboard, cardboard and paper.Australian governments have been prone to get very testy with other governments slipping subsidies to their primary product exporters, but the point here is that it is Australia's plantation industry and Australian employment opportunities that suffer as a result. There is an argument that the desirable change should be helped in order to make sure pricing policy is consistent with industry policy direction.Another subsidy is the hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to the states for the RFA outcome, which, in some cases, defies logic. For example, Tasmania is slated to receive $70 million in compensation directly related to RFAs even though the area available for native forest logging has significantly increased. Tasmania will also reap additional funds from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund. Another example is at Eden, where the RFA that the New South Wales government is presently negotiating will pay $6 million to build a new sawmill. The company, which is the beneficiary, will close two existing mills in Bombala and Cooma and put only $2 million of its own money into the new mill. The plantation sector does not enjoy this sort of largesse, but is in the same market.The taxpayer also faces an opportunity cost in putting good money after bad, propping up an industry sector which is in decline in any case. Every dollar to prop up the native forest industry is undermining the more competitive plantation sector. Another less economically tangible opportunity cost is the monopolisation of bureaucratic and legislative time and resources by the least productive sector. The response from some other senators to this evidence of discrimination was the suggestion that yet another committee examine the plantation sector. The Democrats did not support this. If the RFA Bill is passed, the dubious privileges of the native forest sector will have been locked in and all the Senate will have to offer the plantation industry will be an empty gesture or perhaps an intellectual exercise. It could only be of assistance if there was a possibility or some commitment or indication that the RFAs could be changed as a result.I have not concentrated on the significant environmental and job problems in this legislation. My Democrat colleagues will comment in depth on these matters. We have always said that it is important that this bill not proceed until the issue of the discrimination against the plantation industry and the significant economic and employment issues be taken into account, and until this legislation or process meets the stated goal of the national forest policy statement, that is, to be in transition out of the native forest sector and into plantations.It is clear that the plantation industry is significantly disadvantaged by the regional forest agreement process and that it will become more so in the near future. The RFA Bill is fundamentally flawed and cannot come anywhere near meeting its stated objectives of fostering internationally competitive forest based industries and assisting in the move to a plantation based industry. We believe that to perpetuate such an untruth is inappropriate for the Senate, and for that reason the Democrats have outlined their objections.20:27:007556Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I begin by prefacing this contribution as not being my first speech. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , if passed, will guarantee the destruction of the last remaining vestiges of our natural heritage. Something of importance to me is that many places of great cultural significance to both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians will also be lost. I believe that we, as parliamentarians, need to be courageous in giving thought to this matter. We need to make decisions that will put in place the framework for future generations to enjoy a natural and cultural environment that is at least equivalent to the one we enjoy now.Today we have heard from other senators about the serious flaws in the bill, particularly in terms of the negative impacts on our remaining biodiversity. One other matter that has yet to be addressed is the impact of that bill on indigenous Australians who, compared to many, have fared far worse in the regional forest agreement process.In that context, the Democrats do not believe that the regional forest agreement should be enshrined in Commonwealth legislation until there has been genuine input from the traditional owners of Australia's native forests.In my home state of New South Wales, the Aboriginal people entered into the RFA consultation process with both the state government and the Commonwealth government in good faith. They are now questioning why they even bothered. Aboriginal communities in Eden, the upper north-east region and the lower north-east regions formed their own management committees, they consulted with the elders of their communities and they developed detailed reports for the government's consideration prior to the finalisation of any RFAs. They met the consultation requirements of their own communities and adhered to cultural protocols, but they also adhered to the terms and conditions of the consultation process that was set down by the governments themselves.But so far the documents that have been provided to the state and Commonwealth governments which outline the views of Aboriginal communities in New South Wales have not been included in the regional forest agreements. Not surprisingly, indigenous peoples in New South Wales are now asking the governments to explain why their input, the effort that they had made, has been ignored and why the process that offered some real benefits now seems like just a poor gesture. I believe that, in this era of native title and reconciliation, Aboriginal people have invested a considerable amount of time and energy in the hope that the regional forest agreements process would facilitate some genuine and meaningful negotiation between government and Aboriginal people.The Democrats do not believe that this bill can be passed by the Senate. The regional forest agreements are not likely to stand the test of the next 20 years, as required by the bill, not only because they cannot provide an ecologically sustainable future for Australia's timber industry but also because they fail to recognise the common law rights of Australia's indigenous peoples. As I said earlier, we as parliamentarians need to give great thought and consideration to the decision that we are about to take and we must be courageous in that decision. We must make hard decisions that will deliver the best outcomes for the future of the country. The continued logging of old-growth forests is not in the best interests of our generation or future generations, and we will be judged on our decision in relation to this bill.We have to challenge the rhetoric of what are often seen as self-serving interests who use forest workers as pawns in their game. The future of the Australian economy relies on sustainable employment opportunities in economically and ecologically viable industries. We cannot afford to protect jobs in an industry based on the wholesale destruction of a finite and irreplaceable resource. In my view, that is irresponsible, and we will be condemned by future generations if we do not act bravely to save the forests of Australia.I think that we have already acted irresponsibly with the abundant resources this land has had to offer. There is no question that we have squandered unique species of animals, plants and birds by eliminating their habitats and driving them to extinction. We have consequently been the subject of national condemnation for what is an approach of slash, burn and rape. We have the ludicrous situation where private companies are encouraged to clear-fell old-growth forest in preference to using plantation timber. They are given every assistance and they are actively courted to increase their quotas and then seek a market for those quotas.The compromised regional forest agreement process that has been conducted across the country is flawed. In New South Wales at least the reserve outcomes in the upper north-east and lower north-east regions fall abysmally short of what was identified as being required for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. Most of the national targets for wilderness, old-growth forest ecosystems and threatened species have not been achieved. I think we must give due consideration to that in our decision. There are at least 10 animal species and 126 plant species listed under the Commonwealth's Endangered Species Protection Act as either endangered or vulnerable. On average, those species have less than half the habitat they need for their long-term survival, with some of the most endangered species faring the worst. For example, I refer to an area identified as being required for the survival of the endangered Hastings River mouse, and a cuddly one it is. Only seven per cent is actually preserved. So the New South Wales government has abandoned the concept of sustainable yield in the north-east part of New South Wales—even according to its own inflated estimates—by committing to grossly unsustainable quota sawlog volumes for the next 20 years. This overcommitment will result in a 44 per cent shortfall in resources over the course of the next 20 years, causing irreparable loss of biodiversity and condemning Australia's timber industry to a premature death. That is an important consideration in this debate.In Western Australia we have the dangerous situation where the government agency charged with the responsibility for conservation and the preservation of our old-growth forest is also responsible for revenue generation and forest `management'. A more obvious conflict of interest than that would be hard to find. This must stop now if Australia is to meet its national and international commitments to ecologically sustainable development. The coalition government, both federally and in Western Australia, is deaf to its own rhetoric on jobs for regional Australia. By prolonging the inevitable transition to a plantation based and ecologically sustainable timber industry, the government has orchestrated the uncertainty and the unrest which currently prevail.There is an ecologically sustainable alternative for the timber industry—namely, native timber plantations. A majority of Australia's processed wood needs are in fact currently being met by the plantation sector, and that demand will continue despite the heavy sub sidy of the native forest sector. What is most important, though, is that the plantation based timber industry is producing increased volumes of timber and generating export dollars for Australia. It is a growth industry that is highly mechanised, economically efficient and technologically advanced. The plantation based timber industry is where the government should be focusing its attention, to ensure that a smooth transition from native forest logging to plantation timbers can occur. This would provide a real and economically viable alternative for those timber workers whose future in native forest logging is bleak. If the government were to match its regional employment and development rhetoric with positive action, it would be addressing a number of issues which are holding back the plantation sector—not continuing to prop up a native forest sector which offers only declining employment prospects and ecological destruction.So not only does the RFA legislation ignore the opportunities that are offered by the plantation industry but also it perpetuates financial subsidies to the native forest industry, significantly disadvantaging the plantation industry. A wholesale switch to plantation timber not only would offer a sustainable future for the timber industry but also would keep and, in many cases, increase employment in regional areas. The plantation industry has the added benefit of protecting our native forests and biodiversity and creating a stronger market for ecotourism and cultural tourism. The economic and social benefits from such a decision are obvious.In the past decade almost no industry has escaped the need for restructuring to secure its long-term future in a changing economic and social environment, and this industry should be no different. Quite simply, companies have had to change with the times to survive. The practices of the past are no longer ecologically or economically sustainable. The native forest timber industry and its supporters have seemingly shut their eyes to this blinding reality. Precise figures of the numbers of people employed in the native timber industry are carefully concealed and guarded secrets. For example, in the South-West of Western Australia, the most accurate figures we have are from 1997, when, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and answers to questions in parliament, direct employment in the native forest timber industry stood at 1,842. That represents less than three per cent of the total employment in an already declining industry. By contrast, it was estimated in 1995 that the plantation timber industry employed 1,520 people. At that time, and based on existing resources, it was estimated that employment in the plantation sector could double over the next five years. However, the full growth potential of the plantation based industry is being thwarted by an array of financial, political and corporate imperatives that are designed to favour the native forest timber industry.But more significant than those figures are findings that alternative industries—such as tourism, plantation management, floriculture and viticulture—already make a more significant contribution to the economic profile of the South-West region of WA. Tourism in the South-West has been booming over the last 20 years and has enormous growth potential—if we save the trees. No tourist will want to visit the dismal sight of a clear-felled forest. According to the South-West Tourism Association and the Western Australian Tourism Commission, tourism employment in the South-West currently stands at approximately 10,000 people, and ecotourism is the fastest growing sector of the industry.In closing, the wholesale destruction of our native forests must end now if we are to have a future for our children. Australia's environmental credentials cannot afford the further international condemnation that would certainly follow if we allow the ongoing destruction of our native forests. And each time the parliament passes legislation that ignores Aboriginal people it is an opportunity for reconciliation that is lost. The plantation timber industry workers must be given a fair go—there is no question of that. Aboriginal people must also be given a fair go and, in this context, all Australians must be given a fair go. So I do not believe that the Demo crats are wrong in not supporting this legislation.20:41:007559Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry, I am pleased that you, being a Tasmanian, are in the chair because you may have a lot of sympathy for what I have to say tonight. We are debating the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , which is here purely and simply for the purpose of backing up—from the Commonwealth's point of view—the regional forest agreements that have been put in place by some states and are to be put in place by the other states that have not completed them yet. Note this:It is particularly pleasing for me to see the fruition of a process that I have been closely involved in over the last decade, starting with the Salamanca agreement process and the forest and forest industry strategy, which my colleague David Llewellyn was instrumental in developing.Those are not my words; they are the words of Paul Lennon, the Deputy Premier of Tasmania and the Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.You may recall very well, Mr Acting Deputy President, the Salamanca agreement and the forest and forest industry strategy that was put in place by your former government. Your former government should be congratulated on that because it was probably the first process that was put in place to put an end to the absolute stupidity—the fighting and arguing, the debates and the inquiries that have been going on not just in Tasmania but around Australia for many years. In fact, I think they have been going on since before Senator Stott Despoja was born. A lot of people have come and gone from this place and not many of us are left who can remember where this all started. Senator Brown certainly would—he made his name in the forests of Tasmania.I thought that the bill which has now come into this place was the end of the road after all the heartache and hard work. I thought that this regional forest agreements legislation was going to be the end of it, supporting the hard work that had been done by so many beforehand. I recall not that long ago, just a couple of years, walking through Launceston on a wet Saturday—when we were in opposition federally and when the state Labor Party, who are now in government, were in opposition—with my colleagues Senator Gibson; Senator Watson; Dick Adams; Sylvia Smith; Paul Lennon; Ray Groom, the then Premier; and Michael Polley, now the Speaker of the Tasmanian Parliament.I believe, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you were a little bit late, otherwise you would have been there with us. We walked through Launceston as a sign of bipartisanship to get this regional forest agreement and to support what your government of the day was doing then with the forest and forest industry strategy. Here we are tonight at a point that should have been the end of the whole process, but unfortunately the Labor Party, for its own political reasons, has sought to move amendments that will completely wreck the whole process that you started. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you have let yourself be talked into this position. All that hard work and bipartisanship from people like Mike Grey and Michael O'Connor and organisations like the CFMEU and the Forest Protection Society have gone into what should be the final act. I think we should reflect on where we are at.The Tasmanian Deputy Premier, Paul Lennon, has written more than once to me—and to others, I believe—highlighting the importance of the industry to the Tasmanian economy and the manner in which the regional forest agreement has been put in place, utilising environmental culture and historical factors to protect the processes. He quite clearly indicates the support of the Tasmanian state government for the regional forest agreement process—the Howard-Rundle regional forest agreement that had bipartisan support from both sides of the political fence.The letter that I have from the Deputy Premier points out the provisions of the amendment that the Labor Party is putting up as far as parliamentary scrutiny goes. He said:These provisions are unnecessary and inappropriate. Each RFA is conducted in the context of comprehensive public participation and consultation and negotiation between governments. Such provisions, while superficially attractive, open up a damaging debate every time an RFA comes forward and ensures that forestry will stay on the federal political agenda for some time. This will damage the standing and credibility of forestry and the RFAs in general and the Tasmanian RFA in particular. The Tasmanian government strongly objects to this amendment.As it does to quite a few others. I refer to the CFMEU and a letter to Laurie Ferguson from Trevor Smith earlier this year. He said:On the issue of disallowance, I again repeat the Union's position that it does not support this proposal as we believe that it is a proposal which would again take the Parliamentary Labor Party down the road of tearing itself apart over forestry issues.And that is the crux of this particular bill. We have seen fights and arguments between proponents of the forestry industry, the conservationists and both sides of politics for so much time now that most of us believed that this bill that we are debating tonight would have been the end of the road. But unfortunately it does not seem to be that way.I ask the members of the Labor Party to take note—they usually take note of what the unions tell them—of what the National Secretary of the Forestry Section of the CFMEU, Trevor Smith, has to say. Take note of what Michael O'Connor, National Assistant Secretary of the CFMEU, said back in May—that Mr Beazley does not have the CFMEU's support on this particular matter. The headline in his press release said `Labor leader sells out timber industry jobs', and that is what it is all about: security and jobs for the people who work in the industry. Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry, you know just how many jobs rely on forestry in Tasmania. It is one of our major industries.You have only to look around this chamber to see some of the timbers that come from Tasmania. They could not come from plantations; they come from some of the old-growth forests that are set aside as production forests. This regional forest agreement, after all the toing-and-froing, is a reasonable compromise that locks up 40 per cent of Tasmania but, more importantly, it protects the environment, it protects the industry, it protects jobs for Tasmanian timber workers, and it gives certainty to those people who have invested in the industry. It gives certainty to those young families who have trucks that they contract out to the forestry industry. You are going to take all of this away.I must admit that I feel sorry for Senator O'Brien, because he has not been in Tasmania all that long. I heard some of the things he said today, like, `Why shouldn't the Commonwealth have a say?' The Commonwealth has had a say in forestry for 20 years, and that has been half the problem. The armchair environmentalists that the Labor Party and some of the Liberal Party people have been trying to impress over the years have caused the destruction of a great industry in Australia. You will remember some of the things that happened under Senator Richardson, when he was minister for the environment, and others since. All these problems were caused by the Commonwealth having to have a say. I am most disappointed to hear Senator O'Brien saying today, `Why shouldn't the Commonwealth have a say?'Later on I heard him say in debate that Labor would move a disallowance motion. That strikes fear in the hearts of every timber worker in Tasmania, every contractor in Tasmania and every contractor in Eden. What they are after is security and peace in the forest. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, we would have had a magnificent pulp and paper mill at Wesley Vale in Tasmania, supported by the Labor government.Senator Cook was here earlier tonight. I know he supported it. It was because of the Commonwealth's having a say—the interference and the vote-catching power of Sydney and Melbourne—that Tasmania lost out on a great industry. We have not had an opportunity like that since, until the magnesite proposal came up—and I notice now that New South Wales are trying to put their bid in for that. Let us hope that this time we as Tasmanians can manage to keep an industry that creates jobs for our young people and keeps young people in Tasmania. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, one of our biggest exports is our young people, because they cannot get work in Tasmania.There is nothing wrong with the forestry industry. It is a great industry and one that has to be protected. One of the main things that has to be put in place is certainty. People will not be attracted to Tasmania to downstream process our timber if they have not got certainty. I thought they were going to get certainty with this Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 but, unfortunately, the moves by the Labor Party to put in these amendments look like taking that certainty away.The Labor Party will get the support of the Democrats and of Senator Brown. He is laughing his head off over this. He has never wanted a regional forest agreement in Tasmania, just like the rest of the Greens. The Greens would do anything to wreck the regional forest agreements process. More than anybody, Senator Sherry, you know what happened at the Salamanca agreement. They walked away from that after promising you the earth. You cannot trust them on these issues because that is their support base and they would do anything to keep it going. They are laughing up their sleeves over this. They are laughing because they can see that there is the possibility that the Labor Party will walk away from its traditional workers and support this amendment that will put uncertainty back into it. There will then be no possibility of gaining downstream processing in Tasmania—or Victoria or anywhere else, for that matter.I got an email today from a Mr Paul Hampson who said:As a family of Labour voters for over 30 years we will now be voting Liberal because of the way you are treating timberworkers compared to the Labour Party.That is the sort of thing that is happening. We are standing up for those timber workers. We are trying to ensure futures for their wives and families. There is already the unfortunate situation in Western Australia, where families and their industry look like being sold out.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Who sold them out in Western Australia? Does the name Richard Court mean anything to you?5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—You are selling them out, Senator. I will tell you why. You are being too smart by half by bringing in this amendment of disallowance. I have heard Senator O'Brien say that Tasmania will not be affected. Tasmania will be affected. It had the second regional forest agreement in place, after Victoria. It is a very good forest agreement. It exceeds all the criteria set down by JANIS and everybody else. You have come up with this very smart amendment. According to the ALP, it attempts to quarantine the Tasmanian RFA from the disallowance provision by limiting its application to RFAs signed after 1 March 1999. That is in the amendment.Advice from the Australian Government Solicitor shows that the ALP has made a major blunder. Rather than quarantining the Tasmanian RFA, the amendments will mean that the Tasmanian RFA will not be recognised as an RFA for the purposes of the bill. In other words, the Tasmanian forestry industry would not receive the security and protection which the bill is designed to provide. That is what I have been trying to say tonight, and I hope the message is getting through to the people on your side.In passing, I must say that I did not agree with the comments made by the Liberal leader—although it was a very emotional debate—that Labor senators were traitors. I think that word is a little overused. I do not believe that you, Senator Sherry, Senator Murphy and a few others have been traitors to the forestry industry. But certainly, in this particular case, I think you may have been misled or pushed into a situation that you do not appreciate. I do not think blokes like Dick Adams would be happy about this either. You certainly have not been traitors as far as the forestry deal is concerned because you started the process. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you have been talked into the situation we are in now—but that is another story.The RFA amendments which the ALP is proposing require that, for an agreement to be regarded as an RFA, the agreement must have regard to the objects of the act and that, as the objects of the act were not specified at the time of making the RFAs that have already been signed, it is not possible that those RFAs have regard to the objects of the act. In other words, they are taking Tasmania completely out of the process. It will force them to come back into the bill—because they are outside the bill—and they will have to go through the parliamentary process, and they could be disallowed. So all that hard work—all the hours, weeks, months and years—of processes that have been put together to bring peace to the forests has the possibility of all being for nothing.I received a press release today from the Forest Protection Society which is headed `Senate must support Tasmanian forest community'. It says:The Senate has a chance this week to send a positive message to Tasmanian forest workers, their families and communities.Unfortunately, it is going to be a pretty sad message if the opposition does not change its view, face up to reality and not pursue this stupid amendment that takes the certainty out of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill. After all is said and done, the only reason that the Commonwealth is putting this bill in place is to back up the very good agreement which was made between the state government and the federal government. It is only there to give it Commonwealth security. It was never intended to interfere with what is, quite rightly, the states' province—because they are in charge of resources, as the minister in front would know. We give the states the right to control their own resources. There has been too much interference with the states in the past. We had the situation where everybody was agreed on a way of doing it, and now it is all going to be pulled apart.Another matter that has been raised by what the opposition is trying to do is that the application of the disallowance provision will breach the discrimination between the states provision and the Constitution. There are very serious concerns that this is unconstitutional. The outcomes of the RFA process were long and varied. Some 40 per cent of Tasmania's land area was classified as reserves, including 39 per cent of Tasmania's forests, 68 per cent of old-growth forests and 95 per cent of all wilderness. Those percentages exceeded the JANIS guidelines set up as goals at the commencement of the process.The new Tasmanian Labor government is a very strong supporter of the RFA outcomes for Tasmania. Since the process was started by the Keating Labor government, I cannot believe that our Tasmanian Labor senators have walked away and certainly have not been more vocal in their support for what we are trying to do here.The benefits to Tasmania are huge. The possibility of getting downstream processing, be it with a paper mill or something else, would be of great benefit. As a result of all these discussions over the years, we have certainly become more aware of our environmental shortcomings. The forestry industry would be the first to admit that some of the practices of the past have not been what they should have been.But that does not get away from the fact that what is here now, the regional forest agreement, which has been set up between the state and Commonwealth governments and agreed to with the industries and the unions—they are all part of it—is probably the best thing that has ever happened to the forestry industry in Tasmania. Once again, I plead with the Tasmanian senators opposite to think again, talk to their caucus again and say, `Why let this all go for nothing? Let's put certainty back into the industry.'When in Taiwan recently, I was talking to business people there. They would love to start a paper mill in Australia somewhere. Tasmania would be ideally suited because of our plantation reserves and the other reserves that have been locked up. If there is any sniff of fighting or arguments again—sovereign risk is a big problem—they will not even look at us.21:01:007562Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—In November 1997, the state and Commonwealth governments signed a regional forest agreement for Tasmania. That was almost two years ago. This 20-year agreement guides the future management of our forests. It is the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry.The RFA process had its genesis in the national forest policy statement of 1992, when the Labor Party was in. Broad conservation and industry goals for the management of Australia's forests between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments were clearly set out. The objects of the bill were to ensure that the regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states were consistent with the national forest policy statement of 1992 and to establish the Wood and Paper Industry Council.In developing the Tasmanian RFA, the regional forest agreement, comprehensive regional assessments of forest values were undertaken. Environment, heritage, social and economic forest values were assessed. Biodiversity, endangered species, indigenous heritage, national estate, world heritage, ecologically sustainable management, forest resources, mineral resources, economic activity, social consequences and industry development were all taken into account.The RFA provides for establishing a world-class reserve system for forests in Tasmania to safeguard biodiversity, old growth, wilderness and other natural and cultural values on both public and private land. The RFAs produced in Australia to date include two in Victoria, one in Tasmania and one in Western Australia. All four are outstanding examples of negotiated science-based agreements on land use. In fact, they are probably the best such agreements in that regard in the world.RFAs, however, are not going to remove native forest land use from the public agenda. This will continue to be the subject of keen interest and debate well into the future. As can be seen from the debates in this chamber, there will continue to be immense political pressure from time to time on governments party to particular RFAs that want to overturn those agreements for purely political reasons. Regrettably, the current situation in Western Australia is a case in point.Since the Tasmanian RFA, provisions have been built into RFAs to allow claims for compensation against the Commonwealth by state governments and impacted industry stakeholders where the Commonwealth breaches the RFA. The efficiency of these, however, is yet to be tested in court. While there are generous compensation arrangements, the sad history of Tasmania tells us that we have to be extremely careful. All we need is another Graham Richardson in Canberra for RFAs to be open to overturn by the Commonwealth, regardless of the compensation provisions.In Peter Nixon's joint Commonwealth-state inquiry into the Tasmanian economy earlier this year, he reported that Tasmania's unfriendly business environment made it difficult to develop manufacturing industries that would be viable and competitive on world markets. Further in his report, Peter Nixon said that this factor has been associated with high levels of sovereign risk, which is a matter that my colleague Senator Calvert referred to. I think it is quite significant that in sequence Senator Calvert, me and Senator Gibson, who will follow, are all speaking on this important bill and the importance that it will have on the Tasmanian economy and jobs in the bush.There is the question of sovereign risk. Tasmanians will well remember that it was Bob Hawke as Prime Minister and Graham Richardson as his environment minister who scuttled the Wesley Vale export mill in order to pander to voters in urban New South Wales and Victoria. Wesley Vale should have been built. When you approach the airport at Devonport on the north-west coast, as Senator Sherry frequently does, you should be able to see a state-of-the-art export mill. However, Hawke and Richardson saw to it that the impediments were so cumbersome that the mill could not practically be built.The senior press gallery journalist, David Barnett, in a recent article published in the Institute of Public Affairs quarterly review of politics and public affairs, said:For the ALP Government in Canberra, Wesley Vale was another political Godsend. Hawke appointed Richardson to be environment minister in 1988, not because Richo was a famous greenie, but because, as a former NSW ALP machine man, he was a famous political operator.Hawke and Richardson could not deny that they knew they were playing fast and loose with the livelihoods of the local workforce, as they shifted the environmental requirements on Wesley Vale around, in order to wring every last drop of political capital out of the project.David Barnett went on to say:The last straw was when Richo commissioned the CSIRO to draw up a further report and guidelines for such projects. North and Noranda pulled out. As it happened, the Wesley Vale project was within those CSIRO guidelines when they eventually appeared, but the issue in 1989 was not the environment. It was sovereign risk.Tasmania has suffered ever since that decision. It has suffered in many respects, but mainly because investors have lost confidence in Tasmania. The president of Noranda, Adam Zimmerman, saw to that. He never hesitated to tell everyone who wanted to invest in Tasmania that it was too hard and that Tasmania did not want industries. After all, he had suffered and he knew it well.The decision has cost Tasmania more jobs than anyone could ever imagine. It has cost Tasmania the opportunity of being a vibrant contributor today. Today, Tasmania is so economically depressed that the federal government has to pour money into the state hand over fist in order to keep it going—a generous federal government giving to a Labor government to look after the livelihoods of the people in that state.With this sort of history behind us and still hurting us, the RFA legislation therefore includes a mechanism of forcing a Commonwealth government that wants to break an RFA to justify its action here in the parliament. This adds a further disincentive for such action to be taken for the purely political motives that have driven actions like the Helsham World Heritage inquiry in 1987-88 and, of course, the Wesley Vale fiasco.The forestry sector, and the communities which rely on it, have had to live with the political whims of the Commonwealth now for 20 years. The RFA legislation will be a means of holding the Commonwealth to a degree much more accountable in the future. Without legislative backing, the timber industry and the timber communities of regional Australia remain forever vulnerable to politically motivated attack.It is the federal government's responsibility to protect jobs in decentralised areas—and I must say it has done it rather well where opportunities are very limited—and I believe that the passing of this bill without amendment will see a huge vote of confidence in the timber industry and regional communities in Australia. Unfortunately, the ALP inspired amendment is a sell-out for all those regional communities. The question is being asked right across Tasmania, `Why are the Labor Party senators supporting this amendment and, therefore, gutting this bill?' The people are saying, `Stand up for Tasmania. Vote for Tasmania and ignore the amendment.'21:11:007564Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—I rise to support my colleagues Senator Calvert and Senator Watson on this particular bill. What is the purpose of this bill? The purpose of this bill is to provide certainty for investors in the forest industry after a lengthy scientific regional forest agreement process over many years. Because of the way they had been treated in the past, people cannot trust politicians and they require legislation at both Commonwealth and at state levels to lock in the agreements so that, if politicians want to interfere in the future, then compensation will have to be paid to people who invest on the assumption of wood flows from the forests.It is about investment and jobs in the regions of Australia. This process is the end of very many years of argument, as my colleagues have said, going back about 20 years. First of all, there were very many years of argument between the extreme greens and those people who wanted to make use of these forests on a sustained basis. Then that was replaced by several years of scientific analysis which ended in segregating native forests into two major components—parks on the one hand, and multiple use forests, which included wood production, on the other hand. So that is the process we have been through over a very long period of time.This bill aims to give certainty to people who want to invest in places in the forests. These include my home state of Tasmania, and there are other RFAs in the other states, particularly in Victoria, where two have already been signed and another one was signed today. People wanting to invest in those areas require certainty. Why are we playing politics with all this? From a Tasmanian perspective, here we are going through the roundabout of anti-investment and anti-jobs which is being played by the ALP for the second time.My state, Tasmania, has been sent backwards and badly affected by green politics over the past 20 years. In the mid-1980s the ALP decided to play politics with this issue and run with the Greens because they believed they could use the green ideas to affect voters in suburban Melbourne and Sydney.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Worked well, too, didn't it?BX5Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON—That is basically what happened, and what was sacrificed was the forest industry in the regions of Australia, including my home state. We went through many processes, as my colleagues have pointed out. I might add that in the early 1980s a resource assessment commission, again, conducted a scientific analysis of what was going on, and this was followed by the Helsham inquiry. The ALP did not agree with the recommendations that Helsham made and rode roughshod over the top of them—and Graham Richardson owned up to that on the ABC after the 1983 election.This culminated in the Wesley Vale fiasco in 1988 where, as Senator Watson pointed out, a proposal for a modern, $1.2 billion pulp mill was killed by the environment minister because, again, they wanted to play politics with suburban Melbourne and Sydney. That frightened investors away from my home state and from the other forest regions of Australia. The argument went on for years but, in the end, the ALP government had to go through the scientific process and reach agreements with the states as to what was to be park and what was to be multiple-use forest. It took them a long time, but in the end they actually did that and I congratulate them for it.We have been through that process in many of the forest regions of Australia. Agreement has been reached, and on very generous criteria, for the preservation of large sections of the native forest of Australia. I might add—for any members of the community who are listening—that the native forests of Australia being put to multiple use are well managed. They are not being destroyed; they are being managed on a sustained yield basis. That is what this RFA is about—keeping things sustained and locking them in. But what do we have today? We have the ALP proposing amendments to the legislation which would create uncertainty. Senator O'Brien claimed earlier today that they are excluding Tasmania and the two earlier Victorian agreements from this process. But, as Minister Tuckey has pointed out in the public arena, this will not work, and we have to ask, `What are the ALP up to?' They have proposed two amendments: the first to allow disallowance of the agreement by either house of parliament and the second to insert an objects clause into the bill. These are objects that the RFA must comply with. They have attempted to isolate the Tasmanian RFA from the disallowance provision, as well as the two Victorian ones, by limiting its application to RFAs that were signed after 1 March this year.However, advice from the Australian Government Solicitor shows that the ALP has made a major blunder in this area. Rather than quarantining the Tasmanian RFA, the amendments mean that the Tasmanian RFA would not be recognised as an agreement for the purposes of the bill—that is, the Tasmanian forest industry would not receive the security and protection that the bill is designed to provide. This is because the amendments they have proposed require that, for an agreement to be regarded as an RFA, it must have regard to the objects of the act. As the objects of the act had not been specified at the time these three RFAs were made—including the Tasmanian one—and had already been signed, it is not possible that those RFAs have regard to the objects of the act. The only way this could be rectified would be by amending the Tasmanian RFA so it complies with the objects that the ALP is proposing in its amendment. However, this would then require the proposed amended RFA to go back through the ALP's parliamentary disapproval process—that is, back to square one.Again, security is destroyed; investment is not encouraged but discouraged. Where is my home state today? Largely as a result of green politics, investment in my home state has gone backwards by 10 per cent relative to 10 years ago. By contrast, for the whole of Australia, investment is up 40 per cent today relative to 10 years ago. There is a huge difference in investment in my state versus the rest of Australia. Of course, employment has run parallel to that. Employment in my home state has gone backwards by 3.2 per cent today relative to 10 years ago; employment in the nation has increased by over 10 per cent over the same period.It is obvious to all of us that future and rolling investment is the key to future employment. That is what we require. And here we have the ALP playing politics again in order to curry favour with suburban Perth, at the same time destroying investment certainty—a prerequisite for employment in my home state and also in Victoria. They should be condemned for their action, and I trust that all Tasmanians will chase their ALP senators to make sure that these amendments do not go through.21:20:007566Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—In speaking to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill, I emphasise to the Senate the high importance of the native hardwood industry to the rural economy of Queensland, particularly in the south-east corner of the state which contains 80 per cent of the native timber industry in Queensland. For the information of the Senate, approximately 3,000 employees and their families depend on the continuity of the industry in the south-east corner of the state. The gross value production of the industry is approximately $100 million per year. Around 44 towns in the south are dependent on the native hardwood industries to varying degrees, and the future prosperity of these people depends greatly on a favourable outcome from the Queensland Labor government.Last week, 52 people lost their jobs in Western Australia—with another 200 people to go—as a result of the state government reneging on an RFA deal. I do not want to see that happen in Queensland. To reinforce this point, some 4,000 workers, business operators and their families recently staged a most successful march through Brisbane. They demonstrated unequivocally to the Queensland state government that they would accept no job losses resulting from the RFA process. This process must be based on sound and scientific evaluation of product, our forest assets and management, and not on green hyperbole.Australia has very good forest management by world standards. According to the department of primary industries, Australia has 11.3 per cent of its 156 million hectares set aside in conservation reserves. This figure compares favourably with the world average of eight per cent. Even such green organisations as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the World Wide Fund for Nature recommend 10 per cent of current forest coverage as a target. In fact, of the 156 million hectares of native forest in Australia, less than one per cent is harvested in any one year. In addition, this small portion is selectively harvested, not clear-felled.In Queensland at least I know that no old growth forest is harvested, not that it is easy to tell the difference between old growth and properly managed forest. I know that on Fraser Island it is not possible to determine areas which have been logged from untouched areas. It is a popular question among tour operators who ask people on their buses to identify which side of the track has actually been involved. It is not unusual for people to pick the side that has been harvested.In my opinion, the green movement has been far too successful in influencing state and federal government policy in relation to native hardwood forestry, to the great detriment of our forest based industries. I firmly believe that the Australian people have been hoodwinked in the past and necessarily deprived of a valuable economic resource. I warn all timber workers, small businesses, families and anyone else who depends on the native hardwood industry for their livelihoods: do not become complacent. The green lobby is well funded and very experienced. Everyone in the forestry industry must make politicians understand that they will not be ridden over roughshod by politicians hunting for city votes and they will not support any politician or party that does not support them.Like most Australians, I consider myself a conservationist at heart. I would like my children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy our forest and natural wonders as I have. I know that small farmers are conservationists too, as they depend on the productivity of their farms. Commercial fishermen are also conservationists, as they depend on the continuity of fish stocks for their survival. Likewise, I do not know many people employed in the timber industry who are not conservationists at heart, as they depend on the continuity of their forests for survival. The demand for hardwood and timber products in general in Australia will continue to increase. This demand must be met regardless of the RFA process.One aspect of the debate ignored by many is that the more timber we import the more jobs and income we lose, and the more we encourage the plundering of forests by rapacious multinationals in other parts of the world where they have less conservation protection than we have in Australia. Although we have cleared too much land in the past, this was because we were a young and developing country and the practice of forestry did not exist in earlier times. Most of our present problems are due to the fact that governments in the past have not ensured that sufficient native hardwood plantations were established to meet demand. Even though governments are mainly at fault, it is the industry that is now being blamed.In future, with proper management and establishment of more hardwood timber plantations there is no reason why we cannot increase our native hardwood industry, inject some economic life into our country towns and increase our exports. I cannot support clause 3 of the bill stipulating that regional forest agreements must recognise indigenous heritage values to the exclusion of all other values. I believe that all heritage, whether Aboriginal or not, is of value. Therefore, I will move an amendment to the bill in the committee stage.21:27:007567Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—It would be worth while if senators looked again at some of the evidence given to the committee. I would like to go over a little of that evidence. It is extremely worrying that a fundamental part of the RFA seems to have gone so awry. There was strong evidence given to the committee that its basic scientific criteria agreed upon had been corrupted by the industry and bureaucrats involved in the process, to the detriment of natural areas and the advancement of the woodchipping industry. Peter Robinson of the WA Forest Alliance told the committee that:There is a complete lack of scientific credibility to the RFA, and I have here before me and I will submit to the committee, a two page summary of some of the statements made by the most pre-eminent scientific organisations in Western Australia, including the Royal Society of WA, the Ecological Society of Australia, WA Branch, the Kings Park and Botanic Garden, the WA Museum and also independent academic scientists, all pointing out that the WA RFA is absolutely not based on science.Well respected forest biologist, Professor Harry Recher, starts his submission to the inquiry with the strong statement:The Regional Forest Agreement process is a political exercise with the primary intent of guaranteeing resource security to the timber industry. The establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of forest reserves, the protection of old growth forest and wilderness and the conservation of Australia's rich forest biodiversity are secondary considerations. Despite this, science has been used to validate the process and create a public image of balance and conservation.The Blue Mountains Conservation Society, in their submission, claim that the RFAs in New South Wales will cause the regional extinction of over 25 fauna species and 100 plants, due to inadequate reserves and their vulnerability to logging. They also point out that there are `major problems with the reserve design and the lack of wildlife corridors, both north-south and east-west'. They say:The JANIS criteria and targets for ecosystem and species survival have been ignored.It is claimed that scientists involved in the original establishment of the JANIS criteria and the development of the comprehensive, adequate and representative criteria believe the system is defective. Professor Harry Recher said:The group of scientists appointed by the Keating Government to develop criteria on which to base a CAR system were no doubt well intentioned. However, they failed to follow fundamental scientific protocols and were exploited by the political system to validate the granting of resource security to the timber industry after the Keating Government had failed to pass the resource security legislation in Parliament.A perusal of the evidence submitted demonstrates that at best it is open to interpretation as to whether the criteria have been adhered to in a professional way by the bureaucrats; at worst they may have been deliberately rendered defective.The international convention on biodiversity is also at risk, with many rare and endangered species and ecosystems endangered by the RFAs. These seem to be little understood by the federal government, which appears surprisingly unconcerned. It is also astonishing that in a separate piece of legislation under consideration by the Senate—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill—all areas included in an RFA are excluded. Since the RFAs will deleteriously affect biodiversity, will breach our international agreements and are based on incorrect information, it is of grave concern that another piece of Commonwealth legislation, allegedly one that is prime in the protection of Australia's biodiversity, would lock out our forest areas.Ironically, this means the industry is not pursuing its stated goal of ecological sustainability. This will be to the eventual detriment of the industry and the workers in it. However, it is simply not responsible to wait until the total collapse of the forest industry to prove that point. There are enough indicators so far to trigger a precautionary approach to forest management, but this other international goal seems to be anathema to state and federal officials and also to some industry representatives.Senators are now being asked, in the face of much independent evidence to the contrary, to take it on good faith that the promise of JANIS criteria and comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve systems will be met with the RFA process. The explanatory memorandum for this legislation states that it is the way of implementing the national forest policy statement. However, it is quite wrong for the explanatory memorandum to suggest this. The national forest policy statement was supposed to be about the transition from heavy reliance on native forests to the plantation sector, but it is not. The NFPS sets in place the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. Has this been established as a result of the RFAs? No, it has not. Basic goals of establishing 15 per cent of pre-1750s vegetation, retention in reserves of at least 60 per cent of existing old-growth forest, increasing up to 100 per cent for rare forest community old growth, and protection of 90 per cent of wilderness have simply not been achieved.The rhetoric is of a world-class reserve system and ecologically sustainable forest management practices developed and faithfully implemented. The reality, however, is quite different. Renowned forest expert Professor Tony Norton said:There are sufficient scientific data and other objective data to demonstrate that this assumption is false for all of the regions in which the RFA process has been completed.Even if the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is wrong, even if you attempt to accept in good faith the promises the states make over the science of the RFA, when you look at the milestones that it has been glibly promised to meet in scientific areas it is clear that something is wrong.Take Tasmania as a case study. We are told that a number of important milestones promised—in fact set in stone—by the RFA have been bypassed in the short term and may, in the nature of many such promises, never be delivered, even in the long term. This RFA was signed on 8 November 1997. Many of the important environmental benchmarks have either not been met or not been met on time. Promised world heritage assessment has still not been done under the signed Tasmanian RFA. Even if it were, it remains to be seen how the RFA bill before us now, which does not apply the Commonwealth World Heritage Act, would affect the existing Tasmanian wilderness world heritage area. The submission from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust also lists the following concerns:. The strategic plan for implementing the CAR reserve system on private land was to be developed no later than three months from commencement of the RFA (March 1998). The plan was not finalised until, and is dated, September 1998. . The State was to publish a description of the methods of sustainable yield on Public Land including for special species sawlogs by 31 October 1998. This did not happen.. The State was to publish and make publicly available compliance audits of the Forest Practices Act and Code and the code of reserve management annually commencing in 1998. This did not happen.. The State was to introduce in respect of private land mechanisms to encourage native vegetation retention and management by the year 1999. This did not happen.. The State was to develop and implement a Threatened Species Protection Strategy by 31 December 1998. This did not happen.. The State was to complete and publish silvicultural guidelines for the management of commercial forest types by December 1998. This did not happen.Remember, this was only a case study of one RFA, but this was quite an unusual one in that at least some information was available to some stakeholders for a limited period of time. There are two others which have been signed and at least nine more are to come.Environmental issues may also be compromised where there is fear of compensation. Professor Norton points out that, where new information comes to light that, for example, there may be a previously unknown population of a rare and endangered species or a management practice may undermine key environmental goals, a decision to reallocate land use may be avoided for fear of compensation penalties.In conclusion, the RFAs have failed dismally. They have not protected high quality conservation areas. They are unsustainable and based on flawed and rejected science. They expose the Commonwealth to potential uncapped compensation and we will lose many areas of ecosystem biodiversity and many irreplaceable native forest areas. At least one state has not met basic conservation requirements under the RFA. The RFA legislation cannot be passed with any exemptions from Commonwealth legislation to protect the environment. It is clear that the assumption that the environment is protected by the RFAs is totally incorrect.21:37:007569Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I preface my speech by pointing out that this is not to be taken as my first speech. I was listening earlier to my colleague Senator Harris, who spoke of the phenomenon in Queensland where tourists were asked to point out the difference between old-growth forest and renewed forest. He argued that the vast majority of tourists could not see this difference or sense it or be able to point to it. I find that quite remarkable, having visited both old-growth forest and regenerated forest that is a hundred years old in Western Australia, in the south-west region around the Pemberton area. I can see the difference. It is an astonishing difference. It is a difference which manifests itself not so much in the type and age of trees but in the wildlife which is there—or rather which is not. But I digress.I rise to speak on an issue which is very close to my heart, as it is for many thousands of my fellow Western Australians. After many years of steady but low-key public interest, the forest issue in Western Australia has reached a crisis point. People from all walks of life are now actively campaigning and protesting against the Court government's policy of clear-felling old-growth forests, burning jarrah for charcoal, and chipping marri, karri and tingle. Our political system is in turmoil. The Western Australian state government has failed all parties in the forest debate with its poorly devised regional forest agreement—or `really foolish agreement', as I prefer to call it—signed in May and its knee-jerk reaction amendments announced last month. The Western Australian state opposition is now at odds with its federal counterparts. The Prime Minister has spoken publicly to condemn his fellow Liberal and Western Australian Premier, Richard Court. The federal forests spokesperson, Mr Wilson Tuckey, has openly and very forcefully criticised Premier Richard Court and state environment minister Mrs Cheryl Edwardes, both fellow Liberals.This is a make-or-break time for preserving what is left of our ancient forests, particularly in Western Australia. I support fully the conservationists' call for an immediate end to all clear-felling in old-growth forests. But what we are seeing instead is a round of political one-upmanship, with the forests being lost at an enormous rate while this toing and froing goes on. Not since Vietnam or the doomed Australia Card proposal have we seen such a public outcry of this magnitude. The signing of the Western Australian RFA in May and the secretive and corrupt process used to devise this flawed document have provoked passionate protest by ordinary members of the public—mums and dads as well as doctors, lawyers, schoolteachers and politicians alike. Earlier this year, some 30,000 public submissions were sent to the Western Australian environment minister, Mrs Cheryl Edwardes, whilst some 12,000 people marched in the street. But still the Western Australian government ignores the wishes of the public.No longer are forests a concern for only a radical few. In a poll taken only last year, some 87 per cent of Western Australians disapproved strongly of the clear-felling in old-growth forests. Mainstream Australia now recognises that the logging of our old-growth forests is not the way to ensure a sustainable timber industry or a future for the next generation, and are mobilising at grassroots level to make their sentiments known. Australians of all political persuasions are calling for change, even within ranks of the Western Australian Liberals. These traditionally very conservative residents in leafy suburbia have responded on this issue. The `doctor, the dressmaker and the dame' epitomise the new forest defenders. Although we have come to associate forest protests with dreadlocks and bare feet, for every radical in the forest there are thousands and thousands of ordinary Western Australians—shop assistants, mechanics and accountants—who feel just as passionately about preserving what is left of our natural heritage.During the recent Western Australian state conference of the Liberal Party held in Perth, rebellion within his own ranks was clearly demonstrated to the Premier but still fell on deaf ears. As many senators here in this house will be aware, we have a new party formed in Western Australia called Liberals for Forests. This single-issue party was formed by break away Liberals wholly and solely to send a clear message of protest to the Court government. But it has now taken on a life of its own as the vehicle for vehement opposition by suburbia against their own elected representatives who have failed to represent their clearly articulated wishes. Liberals for Forests now boasts over 1,000 members. The Premier's only response to its demands has been a half-hearted, ineffectual watering down of the original regional forest agreement, which has caused more problems than it has solved. In the last few days, we have seen armed, masked thugs take to the camps of forest protesters, destroying property and threatening lives. What sort of a government would tolerate this kind of violence? And yet by doing nothing to stop or prevent it, it is all but aiding and abetting such outcomes.The WA state Liberals are split amongst themselves over this issue and, with a state election only 18 months away, they are treading dangerous ground. Premier Richard Court has no doubt been made aware of the political punishment his government will suffer at the ballot box if they do not heed the voice of the voters. These last-minute concessions do not go far enough, since nothing short of a complete renegotiation and an open and accountable process will satisfy the overwhelming majority of Western Australians.Even the National Party has seen the light and is courageous in its pro-conservation stance, risking alienation from many of its country constituents and defying its coalition partners. It admits to having been being duped by the original RFA, believing a forest reserve meant `a reserve of forest'. Only after the Western Australian RFA was signed by all parties was it revealed that some one-third of all the reserve systems meant for old-growth and high conservation value forests actually comprised rubbish tips, gravel pits, weeds, a water storage tank and a cleared catchment area.The government's pre-RFA hard-sell advertising claimed that the agreement would protect more than one million hectares of forest from logging, but of course there is no need to log sand dunes, swamps and rocky outcrops. One area described as old-growth forest was revealed to be 700 hectares of cleared farmland on Agriculture WA's Mount Barker research station. This grossly inadequate forest reserve system makes a mockery of public accountability over logging of our native forests and serves only to further undermine public confidence in the agreement.Together with the Nationals, the WA state ALP has borne the brunt of public pressure and has completely back-flipped in its position. In the face of union criticism, Labor committed itself to a policy of phasing out logging in all old-growth forest by 2003, placing an immediate moratorium on the logging of high conservation value old-growth forest and placing these areas in national parks and reserves. Federal Labor and National Party members will be turning their backs on their state counterparts if they allow the passage of this RFA legislation. Labor in Western Australia is opposed to the RFA and is looking to their federal colleagues to support its new-found environmental conscience. The Australian Labor Party must bear equal responsibility for the consequences if it allows this bill to pass. This is Labor's chance to show solidarity with its state colleagues and to demonstrate just how serious it is about protecting old-growth forests.The bill is nothing less than a ticket for the Commonwealth to abdicate its responsibility to the states. The Western Australian RFA bears witness to the appalling situation that can arise when hard fought environmental safeguards are ignored. This parliament cannot continue to ignore public opinion by passing this bill. If it does, it will answer to the electors with the political punishment it deserves at the ballot box. The Australian Democrats—together with the overwhelming majority of mainstream Australians of all political persuasions—support a long-term, sustainable and renewable forest industry.State RFAs are designed to seal the fate of forests for 20 years, but if those agreements are not sound, are greedy in their quota allocations and are not based on sustainable levels of logging, then they not only seal the fate of our forests for 20 years; they seal it forever.My recent trip to the south-west taught me many things, but what it brought home to me most importantly is that there is nothing like actually visiting the forest to bring home the issue of why it is so important to preserve for future generations the beauty that is our natural forests. These ancient forests are not a resource to be plundered; they are a resource to be left for our children. They are there for all of us to enjoy. Since their inception in 1977, the Democrats have argued that our native forests are there to be enjoyed by all Australians, and we utterly reject the notion of logging in native forests. We have argued and continue to argue that the future of Australia's forest industry lies wholly and solely in plantation timbers.Debate interrupted.Adjournment757110000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.757121:50:007571Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The role of women in sport is being debated once again. This time it is Australian Rules fans and coaches who are arguing over who should replace AFL commissioner David Shaw, who resigned earlier this year. This issue highlights the ongoing challenge women face in sport—that is, the struggle to be recognised for one's ability rather than being excluded because of one's gender.It is a struggle about leadership and about recognising that women are equally capable of leadership in any field, be it sport, community, business, the arts or indeed politics. This struggle for recognition is made more difficult by the pathetically minor coverage given to women's sport, even though the achievements of Australian women are every bit as impressive as those in men's sport.As Dr Murray Phillips pointed out in his landmark report, An illusory image: a report on the media coverage and portrayal of women's sport in Australia, women's sport is given little coverage. To quote from Dr Phillips's report, women's sport received just 0.2 per cent, or just over 28 minutes of coverage on commercial television in a two-week period in 1996. Radio 2UE featured just 0.4 per cent of women's sport compared with 98.4 per cent of men's sport, while newspapers featured women in just 10.7 per cent of total sports coverage. It is not exactly a record to be proud of. When newspapers do cover women's sport, it is usually tucked away on the inside page or else presented as a photograph designed to reinforce stereotypes that marginalise achievements.There are, of course, some notable exceptions deserving of commendation, and I recognise the individual efforts of those who actively pursue equitable coverage of women's sport. There are some out there who are doing their best to resolve the inequities.Three ministers for sport down the track and the government has done little to raise and enhance the profile of women's sport, despite Dr Phillips proposing a number of strategies for governments interested in seeking to improve the profile of women in sport. When Warwick Smith, who was then sport minister, launched this report in 1996, there was genuine hope that the government was going to act on these recommendations. I know, Madam President, of your active interest in women's sport and I know you do your best to convey this message to your colleagues. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the coalition government in general.The coalition has scrapped the Prime Minister's women in sport award, something Minister Kelly has not yet rectified. They have mainstreamed—a notorious word in the life of this particular government—the Women in Sport Unit at the Australian Sports Commission and left Womensport Australia on tenterhooks. The government must realise, as I do, that having a woman for sports minister does not translate automatically into effective policies for women. I know from my own perspective that it is not enough for me to rely on my gender to impress women about Labor's commitment to sport. The key is in the substance and in the policy.Currently there is a unique opportunity in sport. There is much that we can do to redress historic imbalances. Sporting organisations and administrations must accept that women do play an intrinsic and critical role in sport at all levels, including in judiciary and administrative positions. According to media reports, the AFL is very interested in seeing a woman appointed to its eight-member commission. However, there are some within the sporting community who argue that a woman should not hold a senior position on a sporting board, regardless of her qualifications and abilities. It will not come as a surprise that Carlton President and Liberal Party stalwart John Elliott is one of those who thinks women should not be involved in a leadership role in football. Like most of what John Elliott says, his views are outdated, offensive and insulting. In the big business world of professional sport, appointments to positions of leadership should be given to the person best suited to the position and not be governed by any discrimination against a particular gender.Elliott and Richmond President, Leon Daphne, claim that there is no woman in Australia who understands Australian Rules and its role within Australian society. This comment is far more a reflection on them than on any woman. In fact, there are many women involved in the AFL, such as Beverly Knight, an Essendon board member; Katrina Pressley, a goal umpire; Helen Bender, who is on the Geelong board; Jill Lindsay, an AFL grounds manager; Corrie Perkin, a football writer and former editor of the Football Record; and Elaine Canty, who is on the AFL tribunal. The AFL will not find it hard to find a suitable woman for their commission board. It has been reported that, of the 30 candidates being considered by the AFL, over one-third are women. The argument that one must have played the game at an elite level in order to be a commentator or to sit on a commission or judiciary is unjustifiable. The issue here is about leadership and ability. It is about selecting someone who has a love of the sport, empathy with the fans and a strategic vision. Caroline Wilson, who is the chief football writer for the Age, asks: what is it about stadium management, the survival of Melbourne clubs, the code's relationship with the media, television deals and national development that a woman would struggle to understand? Wilson goes on to say:Equalisation is the great thing about football. By appointing a woman, the AFL would be making a statement about Australian life, the way it did about racism.Excluding women from a position of sporting leadership, which is what John Elliott seems to want to do, would not just exclude many qualified people; it would signal to Australian women that we can never become administrators or leaders in male sports. Imagine if men were excluded from being actively involved in women's sport on the basis that, as men, they can never properly understand the strategies and tactics involved in women's sport. It is ludicrous to even contemplate, isn't it?Elaine Canty, who is a member of the Essendon Football Club's Women's Network and the first female AFL tribunal member, rightly points out that appointing a woman commissioner is not about being politically correct; it is about making sensible commercial decisions. Women are very much a part of all sports in Australia, especially football. Essendon coach Kevin Sheedy and Carolyn Brown, authors of Football women—the forgotten heroes, have shown the important contribution women have made to this code. Women comprise almost 50 per cent of AFL spectators and television viewers and last year the inaugural Grand Final Week Women's Lunch sold 750 tickets three weeks before finals week. Women are no longer there just to drive their husbands or sons to games and wash their clothing afterwards, and have not been for years. Many basic football and other sports skills are taught by female teachers who are often responsible for nurturing and fostering junior sport.Women participate in all sports, including the four major football codes played in Australia and we play a vital role within every sporting club. I have had the privilege of participating in presentation ceremonies of both women's rugby league, women's rugby union and women's soccer. The AFL understands the importance of having women in senior administrative and judicial decision making positions. They have been proactive and innovative in many areas, most noticeably in promoting indigenous sport and junior development, and I am confident it will not be long before a woman is appointed to the AFL commission.But the issue goes beyond whether a woman should be on the AFL commission; it is about the representation of women at senior levels of sporting administration and the removal of barriers preventing women from attaining leadership roles in sport. I look forward to the continued efforts of many in the community, quite often in spite of the role that this government has played in promoting women. We are gradually but surely taking up our role as 50 per cent of the population and moving towards having a far more equitable and fair representation at all levels of the community.757321:59:007573Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Jim Pennell, a great Queenslander, was buried today in his home town of Kalbar in the Boonah district of south-east Queensland. Born James Elmslie Crawford Pennell some 71 years ago, Jim spent more than half of his life serving local government. He was first elected to the Boonah Shire Council at the age of 33 in 1961. He was chairman of the Boonah Shire Council for some 15 years and served 21 years on the executive of the Local Government Association of Queensland.It was in his capacity as President of the Local Government Association of Queensland that he became a household name in Queensland, and it was in that role that I got to know him well and understand his great and enduring qualities.He served as Local Government Association of Queensland President for nine years, from 1988 until he retired in 1997. Jim Pennell was the LGAQ President when the Goss government developed the new Queensland Local Government Act in 1993. This act was the largest ever change to the way Queensland local government operated, and Jim ensured that the best interests of Queensland local government were served in the development of the new act.He was an executive member of the Australian Local Government Association for 12 years, including a term as senior vice-president. Amongst other things, he served for many years on the South-East Queensland Electricity Board, the Electricity Industry Superannuation Board, the Local Government Superannuation Board, the Australian Transport Council and the Safe Bikeways Board.In June 1988 Jim was appointed a Commander in the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for `outstanding services to local government and to community organisations, particularly in the Boonah area'.Jim Pennell developed a strong personal faith and studied closely the writings of major Christian authors, notably William Barclay. He took daily devotions and actively encouraged other members of his church family of all ages to do likewise. For many years Jim conducted monthly Bible study lessons for the church fellowship. He was a Sunday school leader for 21 years and a bandmaster for 14 years. Jim has left a lasting legacy in his positive influence on so many lives in his work in the Salvation Army in his community.In early 1994 Jim Pennell was diagnosed with cancer and over the next five years, while he still held the post as President of the Local Government Association of Queensland, he underwent many visits to hospital for surgery and treatment. During this time he enjoyed periods of relatively good health, but eventually he withdrew from public office in 1997 due to declining health.At the funeral, which was held, as I said, this morning, tributes were paid to Jim by his son Graeme Pennell; by a friend, Robin Sibbick, who coincidentally I had known when he and I were on the Burdekin Shire Council together and who shares with Jim Pennell a commitment to the work of the Salvation Army in the Kalbar-Boonah area; by the Mayor of the Boonah Shire, Councillor John Brent; and by the Executive Director of the Local Government Association of Queens land, Greg Hallam. The President of the Local Government Association of Queensland, Councillor Tom Pyne, led a large delegation of local government mayors, councillors and officers to the funeral today to pay their respects to their late leader.My connection with Jim Pennell was very close when I was the shadow minister for local government in the days leading up to the 1993 election. That was a time when I was trying to sell to local government the benefits of the GST when I could not even tell them whether or not the GST would apply to rates. I remember many times when Jim Pennell would give me friendly advice on the futility of trying to sell a scheme when I could not even tell local government how it would affect them. Those problems, of course, were later corrected in our 1998 policy, and the policy is now about to become law with its tremendous deal for local government by many people like Jim Pennell.When Jim Pennell was a Vice-President of the Australian Local Government Association, he always exuded a moderation, a fairness and a local government approach to some of the major issues of the country at a time when many of the other people involved in that organisation were more interested in playing politics or playing the man.In spite of his high office, he achieved across the range of interests in which he was involved a great recognition as one who was a straight talker, as one who was straight down the line, as one who was honest and as one whose word you could accept. You knew that if Jim Pennell told you something it was true, it was direct and it was to your face. The behind the back dishonesty that is sometimes engaged in in politics and government was completely foreign to Jim Pennell. He treated everyone he came across with courtesy and respect.He will be long remembered for his contribution to local government, particularly in the professional and significant role that he achieved for the Local Government Association of Queensland during his stewardship. The role that that organisation now plays, one that is respected by all levels of government, is in no small way attributable to the leadership of Jim Pennell.His contribution to public life in Queensland and the high regard in which Jim Pennell was held by Queenslanders is best summed up by the title of the first song at his thanksgiving service today: How Great Thou Art.To Jim's widow Audrey and their three children, Graeme, Doug and Val, I extend my personal condolences and those of the government.757522:06:007575Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to discuss a matter of great international importance: the year 2000 and the chance that computerised control systems for the world's nuclear arsenals could fail at the turn of the century. This is not just some sort of superstitious hype; the issue is very real and very much to hand. Right now Australia needs to be pushing for the world's nuclear weapon states to at least take their nuclear weapons off high level or hair-trigger alert as the year 2000 rolls over. This push is not coming just from the Democrats or the anti-nuclear lobby; peace activists, academics, politicians from many countries and military advisers all over the world are now saying that the consequences of not taking appropriate action may well be serious.The danger of keeping nuclear weapons on high level alert status was brought home on 25 January 1995, when Russian authorities mistook a Norwegian scientific probe for a US Trident ballistic missile and came within minutes of launching a nuclear retaliation. The authorities quickly alerted President Boris Yeltsin, who stood prepared with the nuclear briefcase—that is, the modem in a briefcase that orders the firing of nuclear missiles. For four minutes the military waited on Yeltsin's response and, just a few minutes short of the procedural deadline for an impending nuclear attack, senior military officers realised that the rocket was in fact headed far out to sea.Writing in Scientific American, Dr Bruce Blair of the Bookings Institute in Washington DC and formerly of the US Air Force Strategic Air Command, said:That frightening incident aptly demonstrates the danger of maintaining nuclear arsenals in a state of hair-trigger alert. Doing so heightens the possibility that one day someone will mistakenly launch nuclear-tipped missiles, either because of a technical failure or a human error—a mistake made, perhaps, in the rush to respond to false indications of an attack.What might happen in the event of a mistaken launch? A single missile from a US submarine in the waters north of Russia is capable of scattering eight nuclear bombs over Moscow within just 15 minutes. Less than 15 minutes after receiving the order to attack, six US Trident submarine missiles at sea could loft roughly a thousand warheads, and several Russian ballistic missile submarines could dispatch between 300 and 400. So the two nuclear superpowers remain poised to fire a total of more than 5,000 nuclear weapons at each other within 30 minutes.Major urban centres in the United States, Britain, France and Russia are threatened because of this state of high level alert. A typical intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile would cause at least 10 times the devastation of the Hiroshima bomb, which destroyed some 90 per cent of that city in 1945, killing 45,000 on the first day and a further 19,000 in subsequent months. Cold War tensions may have ceased since then but Cold War nuclear policy has not. Both the United States and Russia still hold to the Cold War policy of launch on warning to prevent their respective arsenals from being destroyed. The risk today is not of a premeditated nuclear war between nuclear superpowers, of course, but that a series of malfunctions may result in nuclear accidents.As senators will know, potential year 2000 computer problems stem from the two-digit programming short cut that causes older computers to read 2000 as 1900, and false readings could cause widespread malfunctions on computer networks. The key concern relating to Y2K compliance and nuclear accidents is that the systems built to control Russian nuclear weapons are now crumbling. The collapse of the Soviet Union has meant that many radar stations are now outside Russian territory, such as the key Latvian radar station destroyed in 1995. This station was responsible for the North Sea and North Atlantic area of the Russian early warning system, and today a backup system provides far less accurate information than that radar station provided.Many Russian military surveillance satellites are malfunctioning and many radar ships have been decommissioned. In February 1997 the members of the institute responsible for designing the control systems for the Russian strategic rocket forces staged a one-day strike to protest about pay arrears and the lack of resources to upgrade their equipment. At the time the defence minister said:Russia may soon approach a threshold beyond which its missiles and nuclear systems become uncontrollable.These concerns were confirmed afterwards by the US Central Intelligence Agency. Power to various nuclear weapons installations has been repeatedly shut off by local utilities after the military authorities there failed to pay their electricity bills. Equipment that controls nuclear weapons frequently malfunctions and critical electronic devices and computers sometimes switch to combat mode for no apparent reason. On seven occasions during the autumn of 1996 operations at some nuclear weapons centres were severely disrupted when thieves tried to mine critical communications cables for their copper.But the problem does not lie solely with Russia. US military advisers have very real concerns as to the safety of their nuclear arsenal and the relevance of Cold War policy in the light of Y2K problems. Admiral Stansfield Turner was a commander of the nuclear submarine fleet in the US Navy and was also the Director of Central Intelligence under President Carter. In 1998 he wrote a book called Caging the Nuclear Genie in which he developed a proposal for a nuclear disarmament strategy. He said:I think that one of the first things we should do is take every US weapon off high alert. We have an absolutely insane policy in this country . . . We're in particular danger today because the Russian early warning system has broken down. . . The US has thankfully taken this issue seriously. With the Russians it has established the new Centre for Year 2000 Strategic Stability in Colorado Springs, home of the US Space Command and the North American Air Defence Command, which can track missile launches worldwide. Here the nuclear superpowers are preparing their likely responses to the Y2K problems.Whilst it is encouraging to see this development and other support offered to the Russians by the US, both countries continue their Cold War policy of launch on warning and maintain their nuclear arsenals in a state of hair-trigger preparedness. So, come the end of this year, the essential Y2K concern is that Russia's unreliable early warning radar and military surveillance satellite systems will either generate false indications of attack or shut down sensors used to crosscheck the validity of attack indications.Not one of the nuclear weapon states can guarantee that its computer systems are Y2K compliant. The Russians have been working on the problem with the United States but plans for a New Year's Eve gathering of generals and admirals of both countries at the Centre for Y2K Strategic Stability were delayed recently because Russia was angry over NATO's air war against Serbia.The week before last, the Senate unanimously agreed to my motion calling on the Australian government to encourage all nuclear weapon states to develop measures to eliminate the risk of nuclear accidents come midnight 1999. The Democrats will keep the pressure on the Australian government to ensure nuclear weapon states do everything in their power to prevent nuclear accidents, and the only way to prevent these accidents is to persuade nuclear weapon states to employ the best solution to the possible problem, and that has to be de-alerting their nuclear weaponry.De-alerting is recommended by the Canberra Commission on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, the United Nations, the Federation of American Scientists, the British-American Security Information Council and many other international organisations. De-alerting is taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert by removing warheads from the missiles that carry them. Neither the Russians nor the Americans appear likely to de-alert if the other nation does not. I would like to see the Australian government—perhaps Senator Hill—take this issue up on the world stage and argue as persuasively as he did to stop Kakadu being listed as in danger.I would argue that if the Jabiluka uranium mine was worth spending $1 million-plus on for public relations and jetsetting around the world to badger developing countries into siding with Australia, then surely we should make an effort to persuade at least Russia, France, the US and others to de-alert their nuclear weapons. It seems to me that the safety of the world is at stake so long as unreliable and extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction are poised to launch at the world's most populous cities. I would argue that the time to act is now. (Time expired)Senate adjourned at 10.16 p.m.Documents75777577The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposals Nos 8 and 9 of 1999.Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Application for approval of a casino operation agreement form under section 62.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations— Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part 105, dated 6, 12 [3], 15, 19 [2], 26 [2], 27 [5], 28 [3], 29 [4] and 30 [8] July; and 2 and 4 [8] August 1999. Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 166 and 167.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notice pursuant to section 45(1)(b)—Disposal of shares in Employment National Limited.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 Nos 164 and 165.Higher Education Funding Act—Guidelines under section 35—Guidelines No. T12 of 1999.National Health Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 162.Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 163.Sales Tax Determination STD 1999/5.Superannuation Contributions Determination SCD 1999/5.Taxation Determination— Addendum— TD 92/166. TD 93/234. TD 94/40. TD 95/40-TD 95/42 and TD 95/44. TD 1999/41 and TD 1999/42. Taxation Ruling—Addendum— IT 2154, IT 2546 and IT 2552. TR 95/28 (Addendum No. 2). TR 96/10.7577The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 31 December 1998 and 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statements of compliance—Department of Veterans' Affairs.Answers to Questions on Notice7578The following answers to questions were circulated:7578(Question No. 557)5577578Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 10 March 1999:(1) What was the total expenditure on preparing the department for the move to accrual accounting for the 1997-98 financial year.(2) What was the department's forecast for expenditure in this area.(3) (a) In which instances were firms or individuals engaged to provide consultancy services associated with the shift to accrual accounting by the department; and (b) which firms or individuals were engaged.(4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy in each instance.(5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much has been spent to date.(6) What is the estimated total departmental expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year.7578Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The information detailed below is only the cost relating to DOFA as an Agency which means whole of Government costs are excluded. The information was provided this way to allow comparison to other Agencies.(1) $37,820—This figure represents the costs to the Department for assistance in preparing an output based accrual budget. This cost was absorbed by the Department.(2) $42,600(3) (a) All(b) Price Waterhouse Coopers (4) (a) 30.5 days(b) $1,240(c) $37,820The actual expenditure and budget information detailed below is taken from information contained in the Department's Financial Management Information System.(5) (a) $586,486(b) $527,237(6) $639,419—This figure includes all direct costs associated with the move to accrual budgeting. There are other costs and benefits associated with the new budgeting arrangements which cannot be separated from the Department's ongoing financial management improvements.7578(Question No. 1111)11117578O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year."7578Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The following programs are available in the federal electorate of BassThe Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment (ECRP) assists farm families in Exceptional Circumstances (EC) areas who are experiencing difficulties meeting personal living expenses. The ECRP is currently available to farmers on Flinders Island, which was declared in drought exceptional circumstances on 8 April 1998. EC interest rate subsidies are available to drought affected farmers on Flinders Island.The Farm Family Restart Scheme (FFRS) which provides income support, professional counselling and re-establishment grants is available to all eligible farmers on a national basis.Under the State component of the FarmBis Program, farmers and farm managers can access support to identify learning needs, link them to the appropriate courses and receive financial support to undertake business and continuous learning developmentThe program is funded on a 50:50 basis between the Commonwealth and the State. Eligible producers living in the electorate of Bass can participate in the program. The monitoring and evaluation database for the program will only record postcodes of participants and data on an electorate basis will not be available.Assistance is available through all programs under the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) that are administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. These programs are the National Landcare Program, National Rivercare Program, Farm Forestry Program and Fisheries Action Program.The Tasmanian Wheat Freight Scheme (TWFS) provides direct assistance for the costs of shipping wheat from the mainland to Tasmania. This assistance has flow-on benefits to consumers and end users of wheat and wheat products in Tasmania. Assistance provided to the federal electorate of Bass under the TWFS is not identified separately within the program.AQIS provides, on an ongoing basis as required, a range of export certification and quarantine services in this electorate. These services are consistent with those provided anywhere else in Australia.(2) The level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years wasOn Flinders Island, there were 18 ECRP recipients at the end of May 1999 and 21 farmers who were approved for support under the EC interest rate subsides.Expenditure for the EC programs available in the federal electorate of Bass (on Flinders Island) in 1997-98 and 1998-99 is summarised in the following table.ECRPEC Interest rate subsidies$$ 1997-98Commonwealth funds29,5720 1998-99 (to 31 May 1999)Commonwealth funds166,275175,413State funds024,737Total0200,150Information on the FFRS is not available on an electorate basis. In Tasmania, there were 64 FFRS income support recipients at the end of May 1999 with a total of 130 farm families in Tasmania who have benefited from FFRS income support since it commenced in December 1997. Expenditure for FFRS income support in Tasmania during 1998-99 (up to 31 May) has totalled around $0.96 million.Nil funds were allocated in 1997-98. The FarmBis program commenced in Tasmania on 17 February 1999. The amount allocated state wide for the FarmBis program from the Commonwealth for 1998-99 was $120,000Funding provided through the National Landcare, National Rivercare, Farm Forestry and Fisheries Action Programs to the electorate of Bass amounted to $280,251 in 1997-98 and $323,840 in 1998-99. $1.2 million of funding was provided under the TWFS in each of the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) The level of funding appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year through these programs and grants is as follows:EC funding is demand driven and sufficient funds to meet all approved claims for support under both the ECRP and EC interest rate subsidies will be made available. Assuming comparable recipient numbers continue during 1999-2000 a similar level of expenditure to 1998-99 can be expected.Overall (national) funding to the FFRS income support in 1999-2000 is expected to be $22.354 million. The expected expenditure has been revised from that shown in the AFFA Portfolio Budget Statements by a letter of 1 June 1999 from the AFFA Chief Financial Officer to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. Funds are provided to farm families which have been approved for assistance regardless of their location. FFRS funds are not allocated on a regional or State basis.The amount allocated state wide for the FarmBis program from the Commonwealth for 1999-2000 is $488,000.The Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Minister Llewellyn, has submitted a State bid for NHT funding for 1999-2000, which is currently under consideration. NHT funds are not appropriated on an annual basis.$1.2 million has been appropriated for the TWFS for the 1999-2000 financial year.7580(Question No. 1124)11247580Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) How does the Government plan to allocate the $18 million in funding for the National School Drug Education Strategy: (a) does the Government plan to hand over the money to the states; if so, when; (b) has agreement been reached with premiers or state ministers on this issue; (c) have the states requested a share of this funding; or (d) does the Government plan to bypass the states.(2) (a) Given the Prime Minister's advocacy of zero tolerance of drugs in schools, will any programs that mention or feature harm minimisation approaches be bared from this funding; (b) what research does the Government have to substantiate its zero tolerance approach to schools; and (c) can it produce any research supporting the application of zero tolerance in Australian schools.(3) Has the Government identified any preferred providers for the strategy.(4) Would school-based counselling services for students caught using drugs be included in this funding or does the Government still advocate expulsion for any student using illicit drugs.(5) (a) Can a breakdown be provided of the $324 000 listed as 1998-99 expenditure; and (b) did any of this money go directly to programs and/or schools.(6) Why was there a delay in implementing the Strategy, in light of the Prime Minister's comments in November 1997 that fighting drugs was a priority of the government.(7) (a) Can details be provided of how the $70 000 allocated so far to the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education has been spent and the committee's brief; and (b) can copies be provided of any written reports or statements produced so far by this committee.7580Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Funding will be provided to States and Territories for cross-sectoral school drug education initiatives by government and non government schools systems under contractual arrangements with the State and Territory Directors General of Education.Levels of funding approved to individual States/Territories will be based on the quality of proposals received in relation to specified criteria, and will also take into consideration the relative geographical and population size and nature of sectors covered by the proposal.The Commonwealth has invited State and Territory education jurisdictions to submit proposals for 1999-2000 in accordance with the objectives of the National School Drug Education Strategy and the Commonwealth's formal request for proposal by 28 July 1998. The proposed funding arrangements for the National School Drug Education Strategy were set out in a consultation draft on which all education systems and authorities were consulted.A proportion of funding will be available for directed, discretionary, nationally strategic projects.(2) The National School Drug Education Strategy was developed by the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education on the basis of a collaborative, intersectoral coordinated approach to drug education and reflects consideration of the issues raised by stakeholder groups in the initial consultations.The National School Drug Education Strategy strengthens the provision of educational programs and supportive environments which contribute to the goal of `no illicit drugs in schools'. This goal, endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in November 1997, is based on the belief that illicit and other unsanctioned drug use in schools is unacceptable. The focus will be on educational outcomes. Assisting students with drug related problems and deterring the presence and use of unsanctioned drugs in schools will also be addressed.The National School Drug Education Strategy is consistent with the principles set out in the National Drug Strategic Framework 1998-99 to 2002-03, endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy in November 1998. Activities funded under the National School Drug Education Strategy are underpinned by the principles set out in the document Principles for Drug Education in Schools—an initiative of the School Development in Health Education Project (University of Canberra Faculty of Education 1994, Ballard et al) which include that the objectives for drug education in schools be linked with the overall goal of harm minimisation. Consumption reduction and abstinence are important strategies to achieve this objective.These principles have also underpinned the development and delivery of State and Territory drug education programs. The principles were originally developed as a collaborative initiative of States, Territories and the Commonwealth of Australia.(3) No. In relation to funding for activities at a State/Territory level, the Commonwealth has sought a cross sectoral proposal from each State and Territory for activities in that State or Territory. In relation to national level activities, the Commonwealth will call for proposals for identified activities under standard Commonwealth procurement guidelines.(4) Following the COAG Communique of 9 April 1999, the Commonwealth is working with States and Territories through a MCEETYA Taskforce to develop a national framework for developing enhanced protocols in States and Territories for handling drug use in schools. This responds to the need to provide a consistent message on a national basis about how school communities will handle drug use in the school environment.The issue of appropriate responses to students, including school-based and other counselling services will be considered. Schools need to establish a hierarchy of appropriate, graduated responses that take into account the nature of the incident and the circumstances of the student(s) involved.Responses should be considered within the context of ensuring that every student identified as having an involvement with illicit or unsanctioned drugs should receive appropriate care and an individual response which aims to achieve the best possible personal and educational outcome for that student, in particular to keep them engaged in education in a productive way.(5) As advised to the Senate Legislation Committee Supplementary Additional Estimates Hearing (E582), actual 1998-1999 expenditure listed under the National School Drug Education Strategy of $342 645, as of 19 May 1999, included both departmental expenses to that date of $272 645 and administered items of $70 000 either expended or committed. Administered items, in the main, covers costs associated with the operation of the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education, and the development of the Strategy, including the public consultation process. No funding was provided directly to programs and/or schools.(6) The National School Drug Education Strategy was released by the Hon Trish Worth, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs on 25 May 1999, following an extensive and valuable development and consultation process.Clearly, in such a sensitive area, there is an important process to undergo to gain the support and endorsement from all parties involved essential for the development and successful implementation of the Strategy.(7) Funding associated with the work of the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education covers standard committee costs such as travel and accommodation expenses, sitting fees (where relevant) and other costs incurred with attendance at meetings or other representational duties. The Terms of Reference for the Committee are set out at Attachment A.The major work of the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education to date has been the development of the National School Drug Education Strategy, endorsed by the Commonwealth and released on 25 May 1999 by Ms Trish Worth, Parliamentary Secretary assisting the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp. A copy of the Strategy is attached. ATTACHMENT ATERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL DRUG EDUCATIONThe National Advisory Committee on Schools Drug Education will:Provide expert advice and direction to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and through the Minister to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), on the development and implementation of a National School Drug Education Strategy.Monitor, review and evaluate the progress of the School Drug Education Strategy in the light of emerging issues relating to drugs and associated drug education, both nationally and internationally and provide timely advice regarding strategic intervention as required.Provide high level expert advice to the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy through the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs and work closely with the Australian National Council on Drugs. Provide reports to Australian National Council on Drugs, the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs or Council of Australian Governments as required.7582(Question No. 1127)11277582Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) (a) How many mobile phones are provided to members of the Minister's staff by the department; and (b) to which staff members.(2) (a) What was the cost of the purchase of the phones; (b) when were they purchased; and (c) what is the ongoing monthly rental average calls costs for each phone.7582Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) One mobile phone is provided to each of the following twelve members of the Minister's staff:Rod Nockles, Wendy Mouat, Richard Wilson, Martin Gordon, James Pirie, Rhana Crago, Simon Bush, Di Goodman, Stephen Hawker, Vicki Toovey, Mark Polonsky, Damien Mantach.(2) (a) It is not possible to ascertain the purchase price of each mobile phone, as they have been purchased at different times and in some cases purchased for other purposes and reassigned. The purchase price for the mobile phone most frequently used in the department, the Nokia 6110, is $779; (b) it is not possible to ascertain the date of purchase of the mobile phones; and (c) the average monthly rental and call costs of mobile phones used by the Minister's staff is still being sought from departmental records. These will be made available to the Senator as soon as this information comes to hand.7582(Question No. 1128)11287582Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) (a) How many lap top computers are provided to members of the Minister's staff by the Department; and (b) to which staff members.(2) (a) What was the cost of the purchase of the computers; and (b) when were they purchased.(3) In the case of a lease arrangement, what is the monthly cost to the department. 7582Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) no lap top computers are currently provided to specific members of the Minister's staff. However, two lap tops are provided as a general resource for the office. One of these was purchased recently; the other was provided in September 1996 for general use and has been retained by the office as a back-up.(2) (a) Recently purchased lap top $4,536; previously purchased lap top $4,144 (with a current book value of $875); and (b) recently purchased lap top June 1999; previously purchased lap top September 1996.(3) Not applicable.7582(Question No. 1129)11297582Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) (a) What was the total cost to the Department of any paid for by the Department in the period covering 1 January 1998 to 31 May 1999; (b) who received newspaper clippings, by name and position; and (c) what firm or firms provided the clipping service during this period.(2) What was the total cost to the Department of any newspaper clipping service paid for by the Department and provided to the Minister's office over the same period.7582Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) The Department of Family and Community Services came into being on 20 October 1998. The total cost of newspaper clipping services paid for during the period 20 October 1998 to 31 May 1999 is $31,940.24; (b) a list of recipients of newspaper clipping services follows: Senator Hon Jocelyn Newman, Minister; Hon Warren Truss MP, Minister; Dr Rosalky, Secretary; Jeff Whalan, Deputy Secretary; Brian Quinlan, Manager, Media Relations Unit; Jack Barlow, Director, Ministerial & Parliamentary Services Section; Helen Hambling, Assistant Secretary, Family Relationships Branch; Liz Hickey, Office of Status of Women (until March 1999); Barry Wight, Executive Director, Economic and Social Participation; Robin Poke, Manager, Public Affairs, Child Support Agency; Joan Corbett, Assistant Secretary, Child Care Services Branch; Alan Law, General Manager, CRS Australia; FaCS Print Room; Wayne Swan, Shadow Minister. (c) Newspaper clipping services were provided by Media Monitors Pty Ltd.(2) Costs of this nature are met as a corporate responsibility. It is not possible to attribute any part of this cost to the individual users listed in (1) (b) above.7583(Question No. 1130)11307583Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:(1) (a) What was the total cost to the department of any electronic transcript service paid for by the department in the period covering 1 January 1998 to 31 May 1999; (b) who, by name and position, received electronic transcripts during this period; and (c) what firm or firms provided the service during this period.(2) (a) How many requests were received for electronic transcripts during that same period; and (b) what was the average cost incurred for each request.(3) What was the total cost to the Department of any electronic transcript service paid for by the Department and provided to the Minister's office over the same period.7583Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) The Department of Family and Community Services came into being on 20 October 1998. The total cost of electronic transcript services paid for during the period 20 October 1998 to 31 May 1999 was $73,607.09—this figure also includes audio and video tapes provided; (b) a list of recipients of electronic transcript services is as follows: Brian Quinlan, Manager, Media Relations Unit; Sorel Huggan, Senior Media Officer, Media Relations Unit; Richard Wilson, Media Adviser, Minister Newman's Office; Simon Bush, Assistant Media Adviser, Minister Newman's Office; Andrew Hall, Media Adviser, Minister Truss' Office.(1) (c) electronic transcript services were provided by Rehame Australia Monitoring Services.(2) (a) Between 20 October 1998 and 31 May 1999 the department ordered 208 transcripts; and (b) it is not possible to ascertain the average cost incurred, however, the cost is $20 per page of a transcript.(3) Costs of this nature are met as a corporate responsibility. It is not possible to attribute any part of this cost to the individual users listed in (1)(b) above. 7583(Question No. 1152)11527583Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6WAAD00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 June 1999:(1) In 1998, were any company injunctions taken out under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or the Trade Practices Act 1974 against protests and boycott actions by consumers, environmentalists or human rights activists, whether individuals, groups or body corporate; if so, can details be provided.(2) Have any complaints been received, since the promulgation of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the new sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974, that the new Act has stifled environmental, human rights, spiritual, cultural or consumer protest in any way; if so, can details be provided.7583Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WRA), the provisions authorising the issue of injunctions are concerned with various industrial matters (eg, enforcing orders made about industrial action, unfair and unlawful dismissal, and enforcing certain other provisions relating to industrial action, freedom of association, Australian Workplace Agreements, right of entry, strike pay, industrial election inquiries). Injunctions may also be obtained under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA), among other things to enforce the boycott provisions (sections 45D, 45DA and 45DB).My department monitors cases where these injunctions are sought, although it does not have direct responsibility for administering the provisions of the TPA. My department has no record of any instance in 1998 where an injunction was granted in accordance with the WRA or the current boycott provisions of the TPA in circumstances involving protests and boycott actions by consumers, environmentalists or human rights activists, whether individuals, groups or bodies corporate.The Assistant Treasurer has indicated that neither the Department of the Treasury nor the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is aware of injunctions granted in 1998 under the current boycott provisions of the TPA against any individual, group or body corporate in relation to protest or boycott action by consumers, environmentalists or human rights activists.(2) I have no record of any complaints that the WRA or the current boycott provisions of the TPA have in any way stifled environmental, human rights, spiritual, cultural or consumer protest. The Assistant Treasurer has also advised that he, the Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation are not aware of any complaints that the new boycott provisions of the TPA have stifled such protests.7584(Question No. 1183)11837584O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 July 1999:(1) When was the Australian Maritime Defence Council established.(2) (a) What industries and organisations are currently represented on the council; and (b) who are the members of the council.(3) (a) What is the purpose of the council; and (b) how often does it meet.(4) Does the council produce minutes or reports; if so, can copies be provided of: (a) any reports from the council released since March 1996; and (b) minutes from all meetings of the council since March 1996.(5) Has the council considered the issue of cabotage and the impact its abolition would have on the security of Australia in a time of conflict; if so: (a) when did the council consider this issue; and (b) what was the result of those deliberations.7584Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Maritime Defence Council was established by the Minister for Defence on 17 May 1999. The Council had previously been known as the Australian Shipping Defence Council, which was established on 25 February 1982.(2) (a) Industries and organisations represented on the Council are:Australian Shipping Industry; Stevedoring Industry; Shipping Federation; Shipowners Association; Mines and Metals Association; Ports and Marine Authorities; Minerals Council of Australia and Government Departments.(b) Members of the Australian Maritime Defence Council are: Chairman: Deputy Chief of Navy.Members: Australian Shipping Federation—Chief Executive; Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd—Managing Director; Broken Hill Proprietary Transport—Manager Marine Services; Howard Smith Towage—Chief Executive; Liner Shipping Services—Chief Executive Officer; Australian Mines & Metals Association—(Represented by P&O; Maritime Services); Minerals Council of Australia—Executive Director; Association of Australian Ports & Marine Authorities—Executive Director; Stevedoring Industry Representative—(Represented by P&O Ports); Department of Defence: Defence Headquarters—National Support Staff; Navy Headquarters; Maritime Commander Australia; Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade—Director, Defence & Global Security; Department of Transport & Regional Services—FAS Cross Modal & Maritime Transport.Associate Members: Australian Shipowners Association—Manager Policy and Operations; Department of Defence: Air Force Headquarters; Commanding Officer 1 Joint Movement Group.Secretary: Department of Defence—Navy Headquarters.Observers: The Chairman may invite other organisations to be represented if matters of interest to them are under discussion.(3) (a) The Mission of the Council is: To promote the partnership between the Australian Defence Organisation and the Australian Maritime Industry, and to facilitate the provision of effective advice and support to Government, on maritime issues in the interests of national security.(b) The Council meets biannually.(4) The Council produces minutes of all meetings but generally, does not produce reports.(a) No reports have been produced since March 1996.(b) Minutes from all meetings of the Council since March 1996 are available from the Secretary.(5) Yes.(a) Commencing with a meeting on 23 September 1996, and subsequent meetings on 12 May 1997, 2 September 1997, 3 March 1998, 2 September 1998 and 17 March 1999, Council has been regularly apprised of events related to the Shipping Reform Group and more recently the Shipping Reform Group Working Group (SRGWG), by members of Council who have been involved with either, or both, groups.(b) Cabotage has been discussed, as has the possibility of an Australian second register, and the implications that these issues conjointly, could have for Defence, in obtaining support from the Australian merchant fleet in the interests of national security. These discussions resulted in Defence and Navy submissions, outlining strategic and operational concerns respectively, being presented to the SRGWG on 18 February 1999 and 16 February 1999 respectively. Also, members of the SRGWG met with Defence Department representatives on 28 January 1999 to discuss shipping reform issues. 7585(Question No. 1184)11847585O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 July 1999:(1) Is the Minister or the department represented on the Australian Maritime Defence Council; if so, who is the Minister's representative on that council.(2) Who represented former Ministers Mr Sharp and Mr Vaile on the council.(3) How many meetings of the council have the Ministers' representatives attended since March 1996.(4) Have any of the Ministers' representatives placed the abolition of cabotage on the council's agenda at any time since March 1996; if so: (a) when was that item placed on the council's agenda; (b) what was the date of the meeting at which that matter was considered; and (c) what was the result.7585Macdonald, 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 Department is represented on the Australian Maritime Defence Council by the First Assistant Secretary, Cross-Modal and Maritime Transport Division, or his deputy.(2) The Department has been represented on the Council since March 1996 by the following departmental officers: Mr Kym Bills, Mr Adrian Beresford-Wylie, Ms Helen Maskell-Knight and Ms Joanne Blackburn.(3) 7.(4) No. The work of the Shipping Reform Group and the Shipping Reform Working Group has been reported to the council at the following meetings of the council: 23 September 1996; 12 May 1997; 2 September 1997; 3 March 1998; 2 September 1998; 17 March 1999.Minutes of the Meeting of 17 March 1999 record a discussion of the issue of cabotage and other issues related to the reform of shipping.The Council noted the reports provided to the meeting by members of the SRWG and noted the need for Defence to refine its position on support needed from the maritime industry.7585(Question No. 1191)11917585O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) When did the sampling and testing of pilchards imported into Australia commence.(2) Is that testing undertaken by the Australian Animal Health Laboratories in Geelong, Victoria.(3) (a) What was the nature of the testing; (b) What is the sample size for the testing; (c) What were the fish tested for; (d) What was the result of the testing.(4) If the testing of imported pilchards has ceased; (a) Who made the decision to halt the testing; (b) On what basis was the testing stopped.7585Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Samples of imported pilchards were collected between 4 August 1995 and 11 January 1996 and subsequently tested between September 1995 and March 1996.(2) The testing was conducted by the Fish Diseases Laboratory at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL).(3) (a) Pilchards were tested for a specific list of viruses and bacteria. Tissue extracts were prepared from the gill and pooled kidney/liver/spleen. These extracts were then used to inoculate four different susceptible cell lines in tissue culture for viral testing. The cell cultures were monitored for 21 days for the appearance of plaques (changes to the appearance of the cells) caused by viruses. The pilchard extracts were also used to inoculate bacterial culture plates. Plates were examined over a period of seven days. Presumptive isolates of either Aeromonas salmonicida or Vibrio spp were subcultured and then identified via a range of biochemical tests.(b) AAHL received 360 individual fish from 63 sample batches for testing.(c) The fish were tested for the presence of viral agents, including those that cause the following diseases: Epizootic haematopoietic necrosis; Infectious haematopoietic necrosis; Oncorhynchus masou virus disease; Viral haemorrhagic septicaemia; Infectious pancreatic necrosis; Spring viraemia of carp.The bacterial testing was specifically designed to identify the presence of Aeromonas salmonicida and Vibrio spp.(d) No evidence of the presence of the targeted viral or exotic bacterial pathogens was found in the samples examined.(4) (a) and (b) Testing was conducted as part of an Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) project, jointly funded by AQIS and AAHL to assess whether imported pilchards were carriers of detectable levels of exotic salmonid pathogens. At the conclusion of the project, which had over six months sampled and tested 360 fish from 63 sample batches, without detecting any of the targeted viral or exotic bacterial pathogens, AQIS, in consultation with the Chief Veterinary Officer of Australia, decided that testing should cease.7586(Question No. 1192)11927586O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) Are samples taken from any of the following aquatic imports, excluding pilchards, as a part of quarantine controls: (a) ornamental fish; (b) fresh water crayfish products; (c) prawns and prawn products; (d) non-viable bivalve molluscs; (e) non-viable marine finfish.(2) If there is no testing of any of the above imports, why not.(3) If any of the above imported products are tested: (a) when did testing commence; (b) who undertakes the testing; (c) what is the size of the sample tested in each of the above categories; (d) what is the nature and frequency of the testing.(4) What diseases of concern is the testing regime designed to detect in the above categories.(5) For each of the above categories: (a) on how many occasions has a positive test occurred; (b) what action was taken in relation to each positive test.7586Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a)-(e) The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) through the Imported Foods Program (IFP) monitors imports of aquatic products intended for human consumption to ensure they comply with Australian food standards set by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA). This monitoring includes inspection, sampling and testing of freshwater crayfish products, prawns and raw products, bivalve molluscs and fin fish products. The rate of sampling and testing varies depending upon the inherent food safety risk of the individual commodity, as determined by ANZFA, and the past performance of the overseas producer.Concerning fish quarantine, imported ornamental freshwater fish are held in quarantine upon arrival in Australia. If disease is observed during the quarantine period, a quarantine officer will take samples from the affected consignment for diagnostic testing to identify the disease. Pending the laboratory finding, the consignment may be ordered for destruction or the time in quarantine extended. (2) The current import protocols for ornamental fish, which have recently been reviewed, require sampling and testing as part of the quarantine control. The protocols for the freshwater crayfish products, prawns and prawn products, non-viable bivalve molluscs and non-viable marine finfish require an inspection on arrival to check for non-viability and gross (visible) contamination. However the protocols for freshwater crayfish products, prawns and prawn products, and non-viable bivalve molluscs are currently under review. Many of these products have been traditionally imported principally for human consumption for which IFP sampling processes also apply.(3) (a) Quarantine, monitoring and testing of ornamental finfish commenced in 1986.(b) State Fish Pathology Laboratories undertake testing of ornamental fish. Samples suspected of containing an exotic disease would be sent to the Australian Animal Health Laboratories (AAHL) for further diagnosis.(c) The sample size depends on the number of affected ornamental finfish.(d) The testing is a combination of routine bacterial and viral culture, histology and microscopic examination of wet mount samples. The frequency of testing is irregular and dependent upon the level of incidence of infection.(4) Testing is not targeted to the detection of specific diseases, as there are numerous pathogens potentially present. The testing regime will identify a wide range of bacterial, viral and parasitic diseases. A specific disease testing program for ornamental fish is in the process of being implemented following the recent review of quarantine conditions for ornamental fish.(5) (a) Iridovirus infection of gouramis has been detected on two occasions in recent years.(b) Consignments of infected ornamental finfish were destroyed and the quarantine period for gouramis was doubled.7586(Question No. 1193)11937586O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:(1) Since March 1996, how many imported aquatic products have been referred to the Australian New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to assess their fitness for human consumption.(2) (a) What products were referred; (b) when were they referred; and (c) have the ANZFA assessments been completed; if so: (i) when was each assessment completed, and (ii) what were the main findings from each assessment process.(3) Can a copy of each resulting report be provided.(4) If any risk assessments are currently under way, in each case, what is the scheduled date for its completion.7587Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Two.(2) (a), (b), (c) (i).Raw Prawns. Referred 10 November 1997. Assessment completed 2 December 1997.Fish from East Africa. Referred 15 May 1999. Assessment continuing.(2) (c) (ii), and (3) The ANZFA assessment of raw prawns concluded that only the detection of Vibrio cholera, serotypes 01 and 0139 would be considered a public health risk. For cooked prawns the presence of all serotypes of Vibrio cholera would be considered a public health risk. A copy of the advice from ANZFA is attached.(4) ANZFA advise they will provide the results of their risk assessment on East African fish after testing is completed in August 1999.7587(Question No. 1203)12037587O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 14 July 1999:(1) Since March 1996, how many consultants have been engaged to provide advice on the use of gene technology in food production.(2) In each case: (a) what was the name of the consultant; and (b) was the consultancy the subject of a tender process; if so: (i) when was each tender called, (ii) when was each contract signed, (iii) what was the contract price for the consultancy, (iv) what was the contracted time for each consultancy, (v) what was the actual time taken to complete each consultancy, and (vi) what was the actual cost of the work; if not, why not.(3) When there was a variation between the contract price and the actual cost: (a) what was the basis of that variation; and (b) what process was followed in determining and agreeing the price variation.(4) When there was a variation between the contract duration and the actual duration of the consultancy: (a) what was the basis of that vari ation; and (b) what process was followed in determining and agreeing to the variation.(5) In the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years, how many departmental officers were engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production.(6) What financial provision has been made in the 1999-2000 budget for staff engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production.(7) What were the qualifications of departmental officers engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production in the 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years.7587Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia (AFFA) did not contract any consultants, as such, to undertake work on gene technology. But its Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) did contribute funding to a project being undertaken by Sparks Companies, Inc., a respected international consultancy group.(2) (a) The company was Sparks Companies, Inc., 6708, Whittier Avenue, McLean, Virginia, USA, 22101. (b) No—an opportunity arose for ABARE to contribute to a consortium of organisations (private and public) that was funding a research project entitled `Biotechnology: Fundamentally Reshaping the Agriculture and Fibre Industry'. This funding provided Australia with access to the results of the research. (i) Sparks began seeking contributions of funds from potential parties in March 1998. (ii) ABARE paid half of its total contribution in June 1998, and the second half in November 1998. (iii) The contract price for the report was $15 750 (US$10 000). (iv) The final report (240 pages in length) was to be delivered in November 1998 (v) the report was delivered on time. From first contact to completion, the project took a total of eight months. (vi) The full cost to ABARE was the initial contract price; Sparks Companies, Inc. does not divulge the actual cost of undertaking its work.(3) There was no variation between the contract price and the actual cost of undertaking the work.(4)Not applicable.(5) No officers were specifically assigned work on the use of gene technology in food in 1997-98 and 1998-99. However, work has been undertaken on gene technology related to agricultural production, which included both food and non-food products. Estimates have been made of the proportion of effort that was allocated to the use of gene technology in food. As a result, the time allocated by different officers in the policy areas of the Department totals approximately 0.5 of an officer in 1997-98 and 1.5 of an officer in 1998-99. The time allocated by different officers in AQIS totals approximately 0.5 of an officer in each of 1997-98 and 1998-99. The time allocated by the Bureau of Resource Sciences (BRS) would total approximately 0.5 of an officer in 1997-98 and 1.0 of an officer in 1998-99.The total time directly worked on ABARE project no. 1502 (Economic implications of genetically modified organisms), and in convening sessions on genetically modified organisms for ABARE's annual OUTLOOK Conference (ABARE project no. 1198) was: 1997-98 14.4 weeks, and 1998-99: 21.5 weeks.This work was largely spread between three research officers. A draft research report and various conference and seminar papers have been produced, and various meetings involving government and non-government staff attended.(6) No specific financial provision has been made in the 1999-2000 budget for staff engaged in policy work related to the use of gene technology in food production. However, financial provision has been made for a number of officers to undertake work that could have a bearing on this issue. It is estimated that this would total approximately $240,000 in 1999-2000 for staff costs and approximately $50,000 in other costs, particularly associated with the development of an AgriFood Biotechnology Strategy.ABARE has allocated $95,000 for gene technology activities in 1999-2000, and BRS estimates that it will allocate some $23,000 in that year that could have implications for the use of gene technology in food production.(7) The qualifications of departmental officers engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production in the 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years are as follows: Tertiary qualifications in biological sciences, applied science, public policy and administration, law, agriculture, veterinary science, animal physiology, biotechnology, food technology, plant breeding and cytogenetics, plant pathology, agronomy and molecular biology, ranging from bachelor degrees through to PhDs.