1999-08-243914SENATE758901999-08-24The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice758975897589Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Does the minister recall announcing funding under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program for the Frankston Community Arts Centre on 15 September last year? Does he recall telling local journalists that the lobbying by Dunkley MP Bruce Billson was a critical factor in securing the $1.5 million grant, as was reported in the Frankston Standard on 21 September? Precisely what weight did the minister and Senator Hill give the intervention of the party room colleagues in vulnerable coalition seats in their deliberations over the allocation of the $70 million fund? Was this Frankston grant one of the 16 bottom drawer projects?7589Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—First of all, I do not know any Mr Bruce Billston. I am surprised that someone who has been trying to chase the seat of Holt for some years would not at least pass through Dunkley from time to time and see a few signposts up. Obviously you did not need any assistance from the local member. Certainly, there was no shortage of people offering their comments on their pet projects—and that is not confined to our side of the chamber. I suspect that most of you were asleep at the wheel and did not bother. That was the real problem. You were scurrying around taking instructions from the ACTU when you should have been out in the community looking at what sorts of projects there were that might have deserved support. That would have been a lot more productive.I certainly do recall paying a visit down there and I remember that it struck me at the time that it completely vindicated the objective decision we had made on the merits of the project. That is always very important. I think that was one of a number of the projects that would withstand close scrutiny—in fact, all of the projects would. That is critically important if the Labor Party wants to continue to rabbit on about this issue. I have to say it must have been a bit gloomy this morning when the old tactics committee got together and said, `What have we got to show for yesterday?' There were five questions on the subject, and all they got was a bit of a run in the Aus which confirmed the proposition that I put yesterday, and that was that you do not slavishly follow the advice of bureaucrats.Let us get back to the main game here. If the Labor Party are critical of these projects, do they object to the restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in the Sydney seat of Sydney? Do they object to the restoration of the Polly Woodside and Federation Tapestry in the seat of Melbourne? Do they object to the restoration of the Naval Stores and the Commissariat Museum in a Brisbane marginal seat? Do they object to the National Wool Museum in Corio, or the development of the Tuggeranong Homestead in Canberra? One could go on. The fact is that Senator Faulkner put his very big foot in this some days ago when he claimed that there were 16 shonky projects. All I can suggest to you is that when you get together for the post mortem afterwards you start to do a bit of serious homework, you go through these projects and try and make some judgments—you might even get Senator Collins to visit a couple more of them. She might even find out who the local members are, and then you can start to make a judgment about whether these projects were worth while. When you do that, I think you will find that they all stack up very well indeed.7589Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that he said that Mr Billson was a critical factor. Secondly, I remind the minister that I asked whether this Frankston centre was one of the 16 bottom drawer projects. He knows what I mean. Finally, isn't it a fact that the ministers had their own points system employed on the 16 occasions when they rejected official advice and that their scheme involved the electoral pendulum and a highlighter pen?7590Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—No, no, I think you have to go back about three or four years to find that sort of system in operation, and I think we all know who invented that scheme. Of course, it sounds as though nothing has been learnt from that fiasco. The fact that Mr Billson might have been critical of the project really did not come into our considerations. I am interested that the experts in bottom fishing on the other side somehow think that because we exercise independent judgment we are rejecting advice. This is just a canard that has been peddled by the likes of Senator Faulkner for weeks on end. This must be about the fifth occasion that he has tried to get this issue off the ground. It has gone nowhere for the simple reason that everyone who has studied it understands that there is a discretion there. What the bureaucrats actually said was, `If you want to take the cut-off point that we insert arbitrarily, you only need to look at 114.' We actually did our homework and looked at the lot. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors75907590The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of former distinguished Tasmanian senator, the Hon. Michael Tate. I welcome you on your return visit to the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice759075907590Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The minister will be aware of the need to further improve communications services in regional and rural Australia. Will the minister inform the Senate of any recent advances in this area and is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals? What would be the impact if these alternatives were implemented?7590Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We are certainly aware of the need to improve services in regional areas. The tragedy, of course, is that only one-half of the parliament seems to have the same view. We only have to go back to the early 1990s when that extraordinary deal was made to phase out the analog service without any replacement in prospect, and then, to compound the felony, to sign up to legal agreements which would have exposed the Commonwealth to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The idea of simply doing a deal without having any idea of what might follow was probably the height of short-sighted stupidity, and demonstrates without doubt that the Labor Party was not interested in letting the technologies sort themselves out or in trying to develop a long-term policy approach.Senator Bourne interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Do not get excited—you will get a cheap phone in the very near future because I am about to confirm that today Telstra has announced the new pricing structure and services for the CDMA network. Senator Allison, I know, will be particularly interested in that, because dual mode handsets will be available for $69. I am not here to spruik, but that does sound, on the face of it, like a pretty good deal. I am particularly pleased about the fact that we do now have world-class technology available in competition with GSM, which in itself is world-class, and for the first time we will have a very decent range of competitive alternatives in the marketplace.By the end of next year CDMA will be available in all analog areas, and Telstra has confirmed that it plans to extend CDMA into areas not previously covered by analog. Telstra analog customers will be able to connect to CDMA with no connection fee. I do not need to remind the Senate of the inherent superiority of digital services, but certainly CDMA and GSM will offer services such as advanced message bank, call forwarding, calling number display and call waiting, and, when we get to the third generation, even Senator Lundy will be able to work out which button to press to be able to access the Internet. You will have your own flat panel screen that will fold out and you will be able to play to your heart's content.While you are taking time off to claim for your RSI disability, can I entreat the Labor Party to simply reconsider the Luddite position they adopted at the last election. Remember Senator Schacht? This is his great claim to fame, apart from being the almost endorsed candidate for Makin—and we wish him well in that regard. Makin will be a very tough call, but if anyone from Labor can do it, Senator Schacht can. But his lasting contribution to ensuring the Labor Party lost the last election was to bag the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. There was about $150 million left in it, but they said they would freeze it. That came on top of being opposed to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund a few years back, and when the Telstra bill came up in the chamber only a matter of a few months ago they were at it again. It was tragic. Senator Boswell had a field day going all around Queensland—he even went outside his home state—pointing out the fact that we had a whole series of initiatives to benefit regional and rural Australia and the Labor Party opposed every one of them. That is the tragedy: they have no interest at all in attending to the needs of regional and rural Australia. Today also happens to be the day on which the final four per cent will get their digital data connections—very good news for rural Australia.75917591Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Is the minister aware that the City of Maroondah was initially informed that they would be advised of the success or otherwise of their application for funding from the Federation Cultural and Heritage Fund for the Maroondah Heritage Trust project in November 1998? Can he confirm that he announced the $2 million funding for the project on Wednesday, 23 September? Is he aware that the member for Deakin, Phil Baressi, was therefore able to use the funding announcement as the lead item in a newsletter distributed to every household in his electorate on the Tuesday before the election, and in a how-to- vote leaflet on the Friday? If that wasn't the reason for fast-tracking the announcement, what was?7591Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is definitely time for re-education classes. You cannot be so out of touch that you have two Victorian senators who have no idea how to pronounce the names of House of Representatives members. It is a truly embarrassing situation. You really do need some remedial coaching. I would have thought that, at the very least, these matters would come up at the strategy meetings where they would say, `How are we going to knock off the member for Deakin?' or `How are we going to deal with the member for Dunkley?' But if you do not even know who that is, it makes it very difficult indeed. At least you did not pronounce it `Mr Barassi', which I would have thought was almost on the tip of Senator Conroy's tongue.Honourable senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Senator Ray would have known.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, please return to the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—I think the question had something to do with whether I was aware of some advice that Maroondah council received. I do not know why I would be particularly aware of any advice they received. Certainly, I can recall the announcement of a number of very good projects at a time when I think there was a particular interest in those projects. As Senator Conroy well knows, the guidelines in relation to the caretaker convention make it perfectly plain that, as long as the decisions are taken before the election is called, there is no particular significance attached to making those announcements at a time that might be most suitable to all concerned. All I can say to Senator Conroy is this: you ought to take a visit out there—and apologise to Mr Baressi when you do—drive past his electorate office so you get it fixed in your mind, then go on to the particular project area and ask them what they think of it. Ask them whether they are objecting violently to being a fortunate beneficiary of limited federal government funds—ask them whether they have any objection. Or you, as an outside objective observer, can come along to the Senate and tell us what was wrong with that particular project.The problem is, as Senator Faulkner said yesterday, in letting a very big cat out of a very smelly bag, you are not really interested in outcomes. You are not interested in the merits of the projects; you are simply interested in running around trying to get a dead cat off the map—a dead cat that has been buried for at least 12 months.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—It's your dead cat.LD4Senator ALSTON—No, a dead cat for you. It is something that, as far as we are concerned, is smelling like roses because they were all projects that deserved to be supported. They were ones that were very much on the live list and we chose the best from those available.7592Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Why does the minister persist in ignoring the caretaker convention that `it is desirable, if the decisions concern significant initiatives, that they be announced in advance of the caretaker period in order to avoid controversy'?7592Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Do I take it from that that Senator Conroy is saying that this was a significant project? I think we can proceed from that to saying that Senator Conroy, even though he might not have been out there personally, is now telling us that he regards that as a significant project, which I presume means that he thinks it deserved to be funded. If that is right, that is very good news indeed, because that is the first time that anyone on your side of the chamber has actually been prepared to come out and endorse one of these projects. Why can't you look at some more of these projects and come to similar conclusions? Senator Conroy presumably has some trace of cultural heritage in him. He goes to Victoria Park from time to time; he must know what it means. All he has got to do is go little bit further. In fact, if you go along that road, along Johnson Street, it will take you out to the Maroondah Highway. It is an extra half-hour or so. It is probably not within your union fiefdom—(Time expired)75927592Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs advise the Senate of the Howard government's substantial commitment to improving literacy standards for indigenous students? Would he also advise the Senate of support for the government's commitment to this strategy?7592Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Eggleston for what is a very important question. For too long now literacy levels for indigenous students have been at too low a level. In fact, they have been at a much lower level than for students in the wider community. So it is entirely appropriate that the Commonwealth has set a goal for 2004 of equality of outcomes in indigenous education. To show this government's commitment, we have committed in this budget $1.1 billion worth of initiatives over the next five years in relation to indigenous education. We will maintain funding for indigenous education at record levels.We acknowledge that there is much to be done—the opposition might just care to listen to this—in the area of indigenous education. We are on the right track, but it is not just us who are saying we are on the right track. Just take the words of Mr Bob Collins, a former Labor senator, who has a long experience with indigenous affairs. He said that the government's measures were right on the mark in relation to indigenous education. His review team visited no fewer than 44 schools with Aboriginal students, and the feedback that he obtained from parents and teachers in relation to our initiatives was overwhelming support. Mr Collins went on further to state that he believes that the government's plan of obtaining educational partnerships with local communities and improving attendance at school is crucial, and the government is in entire agreement with this. We will also take into account the suggestion of in-service training for non-indigenous teachers before they go into the field and their teaming with indigenous teachers. This the government regards as a crucial point as well.AW5CARRSenator Carr—How are you going to get the money to the schools? How are you going to get over the Northern Territory government?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, you are out of order.9X5Senator ELLISON—We have also earmarked an additional $14 million for improving indigenous students' school attendance over the same period. We are dedicated to closing the gap between indigenous educational outcomes and those of the wider community. We are now requiring education providers funded through the Commonwealth supplementary indigenous programs for the years 2001 to 2004 to focus on accelerating the closure of that gap, particularly so in relation to literacy, numeracy and attendance at school. These are, after all, the basics of achieving the outcomes that we are after.It is a crying shame that in 1999 we have to think of even setting a target of 2004 for achieving equality in indigenous educational outcomes. But we are set on that path, and it is the right track. In fact, Senator Ridgeway was quoted in the paper today as saying, `You have got to break that welfare cycle. It can't be a case of the self-defeating cycle of dependency.' That is what this government is all about. We are seeking to achieve that in our national indigenous literacy and numeracy strategy. This is a well thought-out, practical strategy whereby we can give those basic qualifications and abilities to indigenous students to go further.There are some achievements worth while noting. We have come a long way and we still have a long way to go, but let us look at the figures for indigenous students in Australia today. We have a record number of indigenous students enrolling in tertiary education, 7,789 students enrolled in 1998, and a record number of about 5,000 in indigenous traineeships.Senator Crossin interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—Senator Crossin seems to have something to say about this, but what we are saying is that this is an achievement. Give credit where it is due. As I said, there is much to be done, and we are set on the task of achieving that target by 2004. (Time expired)75937593Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the minister for communications. Isn't it true that the government announced 39 grants from the FCHP Program in the course of the last election campaign? How does he explain the fact that 33 out of 39 grants were in coalition seats, 12 in seats that were One Nation vulnerable and two in the ACT, where the President of the Senate, Senator Reid, was under strong challenge from the Democrats? How does he explain that of the 28 successful grants which were left for announcement to 15 October, well after the election, 14 were in Labor seats and three in seats held by Independents. Was the FCHP Program designed as a pork barrelling program from the outset or was it just manipulated by the relevant ministers and the government for political advantage?7593Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The short answers to those questions are no and no. Just in case anyone might think that Senator Faulkner is making the point that there is something wrong with announcing projects during an election campaign, perhaps I could draw the Senate's attention to a press release dated 12 February 1996 under the name of Senator John Faulkner—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And tell us whether the shadow minister was consulted under the caretaker convention.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner!5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Tell us whether the shadow minister was consulted in accordance with the caretaker convention.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner! You are totally out of order, having asked a question, to be sitting and shouting across the table to the minister answering it. You will abide by the standing orders.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—But I am asking him whether— 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is an appropriate time for you to take a supplementary question if you wish to do so.LD4Senator ALSTON—It does hurt, doesn't it? You can understand why he is exquisitely sensitive.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Tell us whether the shadow minister was consulted—that is the point.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner!LD4Senator ALSTON—No, the point is not that at all. Let us be quite clear on the point: Senator Ray's adviser, Senator Conroy, was on his feet only a short time ago saying that the caretaker convention meant that it was not desirable to announce significant projects, so that seems to be the only thing you are pointing to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, please speak to the chair and not across the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—If that is the case, then anything that Senator Faulkner might say by way of interjection is utterly irrelevant to that point. So, if the Labor Party is arguing that somehow it is improper to make announcements during the election campaign, why did he put out a release headed `$715,000 worth of grants announced for River Murray Corridor Green Projects' and saying, `The Federal Environment Minister'—we all know him: the minister for getting rolled—RF4COOKSenator Cook—You know what the percentages are. This is a smear—you are smearing.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, shouting in that fashion is totally disorderly. Persistent shouting is disorderly.RF4COOKSenator Cook—He is smearing him, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, abide by the standing orders.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It is a question of honesty.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is an appropriate time to take up and deal with answers. I call Senator Alston.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Come on, boofhead.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, withdraw that remark.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I do.LD4Senator ALSTON—As I was in the process of pointing out, `The Federal Environment Minister, Senator John Faulkner, today announced grants totalling $715,000 for community'—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Why don't you just table it, boofhead?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, cease interjecting in that fashion.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Schacht should withdraw that remark. Rather than just stop interjecting, he ought to withdraw that remark. It was totally unparliamentary.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, I asked you to withdraw it previously and you did. You should withdraw it again. You should stand up when you withdraw.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—I do.LD4Senator ALSTON—All I can say is that it might get a few extra votes in Makin—in the preselection convention, I mean. It certainly will not get any in the electorate at large.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How many attempts at preselection did you have? It was four or five—as many as Robert Hill.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left are making far too much noise.LD4Senator ALSTON—Let us be quite clear as to what is being discussed here and what the thrust of the question is. Senator Faulkner seemed to be suggesting that there was something improper about announcing grants during the campaign period. I am simply pointing out, `The Federal Environment Minister today announced grants totalling $715,500'—I left out the 500, I think—Senator Faulkner interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Here you are: at the top it says `$715,000' and then in the second line it says `$715,500'—but, I suppose, what is an extra $500 when you are having fun? Here he was announcing grants for community vegetation corridor projects on 12 February 1996. So all I can say is that Senator Faulkner clearly accepts the proposition that there is nothing wrong with announcing projects if the decision has been taken prior to the calling of the election. Everyone else understands that. You can get up and rabbit on as much you like—or anyone can—to suggest that somehow this is in contravention of the arrangements that are in place. It clearly is not. The Labor Party knows it and so do we.7595Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask again if the minister can explain to the Senate why 33 out of the 39 grants were in coalition seats, 12 of those in seats that were One Nation vulnerable, and two in the ACT, where Senator Reid was under challenge. Perhaps, Minister, you could also explain to the Senate how many of the 16 projects which did not make the 15-point threshold yet were selected by ministers were among the 39 grants which were announced by the government during the election campaign. If you do not know, take it on notice.7595Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The proposition seems to be, once again, that there were certain grants that did not make the cut-off. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. The bureaucrats gave us the full list—many hundreds of projects—and said, `At 15 points and above, there are 114. That is probably enough for you to choose from.' If it had been Senator Faulkner, you can rest assured he would have gone back and said, `Well, why didn't you just give me 60? Make it really easy and I can get on with doing some other things.' But, no, we did not take that advice; we looked at the best. We went right through the projects and chose the best. We were not concerned with the sort of numerical fun and games that Senator Faulkner might like to play; we were concerned to ensure that all those projects measured up—stacked up—against the proper criteria. We gave our reasons for doing that, and Senator Faulkner knows that because he sought to get access to them. (Time expired)5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I ask that the document that the minister glanced at, which was obviously provided by the government advisers via the Government Whip to Senator Alston to try to help dig him out of the ditch, be tabled for the benefit of the Senate.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on the point of order: just so that Senator Faulkner is not taken by surprise, I did not actually glance at it at all. It was given to me because it is even further ammunition that refutes the claim he is making, and I may look at it in the next couple of minutes. I certainly have not looked at it at the present time and there is absolutely no basis for suggesting that any such document should be tabled.75957595Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald. Earlier this year the minister announced that the government was liaising with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE, to analyse cabin air quality on BAe146 aircraft. Is the minister aware that, internationally, Australia has proportionally the highest number of reported problems associated with oil fumes leaking into aircraft cabins and cockpits? Can the minister confirm that Ansett Australia have now withdrawn from the ASHRAE inquiry and, if they have, can the minister tell the Senate the reasons for their withdrawal?7595Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I appreciate getting that question from Senator Woodley. It is a refreshing change to get a question from that side of the chamber that is sensible and shows some real interest in matters of public affairs. Senator Woodley has, as he mentioned, followed this along on a number of occasions. I, like Senator Woodley and many of my other colleagues from other parts of Australia, travel quite regularly from Brisbane to Canberra on the BAe and, of course, have a personal interest in ensuring that this aircraft is safe. Senator Woodley, as I have mentioned to you before, both CASA and BASI are continuing their investigations and are working with both Qantas and Ansett and their subsidiaries to get a better understanding of the issues. I and the government have absolute confidence in the work that both CASA and BASI do and in the investigations they are conducting. I am informed that CASA has ensured that a newly developed package of modifications is now available for the BAe146 operators so that they can improve their cabin environment. Certainly, the government will continue to ensure that both CASA and BASI take swift action to address problems that may arise.Senator Woodley, you asked a specific question, as I recall, about the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. That organisation was doing some work, which I think we discussed previously when I answered a question. Senator Woodley, I am not publicly aware of the reason for that. It may have something to do with some legal obligations that, perhaps, it is better for me not to comment upon in the Senate. Senator Woodley, I am aware that you are chairing a Senate inquiry into the BAe146 and the problems with the cabin air. Perhaps it might be better if you put that question directly to Ansett in the course of your inquiries. They would be able to answer much better than I could why Ansett has withdrawn.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Can't you find out, Minister?YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—If you listened, Senator Schacht—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ian Macdonald, your remarks should be to the chair, not across the chamber.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Schacht has interjected and asked why I do not have an answer. The question asked, if Senator Schacht had listened, was whether I knew why Ansett had withdrawn from the inquiry. Of course, that is a matter specifically for Ansett. I have some information, but it is perhaps not appropriate to mention it publicly. But I am suggesting to Senator Woodley that he might put that question directly to Ansett during the course of the inquiry. Obviously, Senator Schacht has no interest or understanding of this matter, but that is typical of him and his colleagues. Senator Woodley, I suggest that is the best way out of it. I do thank you for raising this important issue.7596Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Certainly I understand the sensitivity associated with this, but I am concerned about the government's responsibility in this area.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Just fax it to Ansett.HX5Senator WOODLEY—I am not asking Senator Schacht a question, so I do not need his answer. I am wondering whether the government is concerned about Ansett pulling out of the inquiry. Will the government ensure that Ansett will fulfil its corporate responsibility and duty of care towards passengers and crew and do they have any suggestions about how that might be done?7596Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In responding to Senator Woodley's supplementary question, Ansett and all other airlines in Australia will have to comply with any properly regulated requirements of CASA and any other federal government or other regulatory organisation. So if assessments are made then Ansett, along with every other airline, will of course comply. At this stage, Senator Woodley, CASA is monitoring the situation very closely, as I know you are. As I say, I hope that your committee can get the answer specifically to your question of why Ansett have withdrawn, but their withdrawal will not in any way impact upon the government's obligations and CASA's obligations to the flying public in Australia. If regulations are required, they will be introduced by CASA and all airlines will then comply.75967596Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is the minister aware that it is a breach of proper process not to notify both successful and unsuccessful applicants for grants programs at the same time? Further, is he aware that applicants should be notified without unnecessary delay? Is he aware that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet provided advice to this effect to his department and to Environment Australia in the course of the election cam paign? Why did the minister ignore this advice? Why did he announce 32 of 60 projects during the election campaign, leaving the rest of the successful applicants and all of the unsuccessful applicants to be notified well after the campaign, on 15 October?7597Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We were conscious of the caretaker conventions, and I think we have gone over that on a number of occasions. All of these projects were selected prior to the calling of the election and were then announced at a time of our choosing. That is what we did. There is a suggestion that somehow you should not announce things during a campaign. Let us remember the sorts of things that Labor did in 1996. It was not just $715,000; Senator Faulkner put out another press release promising to provide up to $25 million to the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games. He then went on to announce that the Bureau of Environmental Economics would receive $2.8 million of new funding over four years. That was on 27 February. How long before the election was that?He announced $1.13 million, allocated over four years, to fund a major Labor government commitment to lead international efforts in the conservation of the albatross. There it is: it is on the record. You cannot have it both ways. If there were some projects that were ticked off before an election that were good news and that the voters might be interested in, you cannot say that somehow we should not announce them. Clearly that was not the approach Labor took three years ago. They chose to announce projects which, on the face of it, all seemed to be good news projects, so I cannot understand why they would be objecting to us announcing some good news projects. After all, those people who suffered for 13 years were looking for a bit of relief. They knew that they had a bunch of philistines running the show for all that length of time, and they were very interested in knowing whether there was going to be something in the area of cultural and heritage announcements. That is why we made the announcements we did—because we thought it was important that they be aware of them and they could take them into account if they chose. I very much doubt that these would have been huge vote swingers but, nonetheless, they were projects of importance, they were projects of significance and they were projects that deserved to be funded.I think Senator Faulkner said there were 39 projects that went to Liberal seats. The fact is that 38 of the projects, or 64 per cent, were located in the 62 per cent of electorates held by the coalition, and 18 projects, or 30 per cent, were in the 33 per cent of seats held by Labor. Three projects, or five per cent, were in the five per cent of seats held by Independents, and one project went across multiple electorates. I would have thought that was a scrupulously fair allocation. It reflected the proportion of seats as held by the parties prior to the last election.But that is a matter of interest to the political aficionados. It is really not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is whether these projects deserved to be supported, and that is where we have had this deadly silence from the Labor Party. They have not been prepared to single out one project. Go and ask Dick Adams in Lyons whether he objects to the Woolmers Heritage and Cultural Estate project on the Clarendon Homestead. Did Duncan Kerr object to the historic female factory site in Denison? There are a whole swag of these. They are all very good projects. They stack up, they can withstand the light of day, and they deserve to be supported.7597Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked the minister: isn't it true that 39 grants from the FCHP program were announced in the course of the last election? Isn't it true that 33 out of those 39 grants were in coalition seats? If you have an announcement of 39 grants in the course of an election campaign, with such obvious political bias in the vast majority of the grants being announced in politically significant and politically sensitive seats, isn't that just political manipulation of a grants program? Aren't you guilty of pork-barrelling?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you should not direct your question directly across to the minister in that fashion.Senator Faulkner interjecting—7598Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—No, emphatically not guilty.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. This is another example of what I raised with you under 203(e) yesterday. You called Senator Faulkner to order and, as you turned to Senator Alston, he did as he does on every occasion that you call him to order: he answered you back as a demonstration to everybody that he will not respect the chair—chosen, I might remind everybody, unanimously by the whole Senate, so when he is rude to you he is rude to all of us; he is rude to this institution. You should not allow him, with respect, to constantly answer you back and give you cheek when you have put him in his proper place.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I am sure Senator Faulkner knows the provisions of standing order 203.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, the problem I have with the ruling that you made is that Senator Alston has been consistently addressing the opposition over the last two question times across the chamber, as you would be aware if you looked at the Hansard , using the word `you' constantly. If I am drawn to order for doing that, then it seems to me the same principle and approach should apply to Senator Alston. I do not mind if government ministers are called to order, but I absolutely object if the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is called to order for a crime being committed continually by government ministers, mainly Senator Alston.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If that were the case, you would be entitled to feel aggrieved, but it is not the case. Ministers get called to order as well. Nobody is called to order on every occasion they transgress, but they are intermittently on both sides, and the record shows that.LD4Senator ALSTON—The fact is of course that all of the electorates that we were contesting at the last election were important to us. You might of course say—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston!LD4Senator ALSTON—I am sorry, Madam President. I accept that what is of concern here is the basis on which the decisions are made.Senator Faulkner interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, Senator Faulkner actually happens to be our best asset, so we hope that his reign will be a very long one in his current position. But what is much more important is the basis on which these decisions were made. These projects ranged across a large number of electorates throughout Australia, as you would expect. I would have thought that people in those electorates were very much interested in the good news. Of course, it is not the first time that good news has been announced during an election, and I am sure it will not be the last.75987598Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Hill. Minister, in light of the fact that section 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act states that any material not forming part of an act is capable of assisting in the legal interpretation of an act, can you guarantee that the High Court will not be influenced by the proposed republic preamble despite clause 4 of the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) Bill 1999 stating that the preamble has no legal force?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is within that a certain element of seeking legal advice. If the minister has anything he wishes to say on it he may, but it is not appropriate for legal advice to be given in the chamber.7598Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Madam President, I think the honourable senator answered his own question in what he put in the second half of that question. In fact, the constitutional change will specifically provide that it is not to be taken into account in interpretation. If that is the comfort the honourable senator is seeking, he has it in that explicit language that is provided in the referendum.75987598Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Hill in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. When the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, explained the coalition's victory on ABC TV on election night, he said:. . . specific project announcements were always held back for announcement during the election campaign.Was Mr Fischer referring to the $198 million in grants under the Natural Heritage Trust, the $317.4 million in Federation Fund major projects or the $41.8 million in Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects—a total of $557 million in grants—all of which were announced during the election campaign?7599Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—All I can say is that I am pleased that the opposition recognises how well the economy is going and that it recognises what a good job this government is doing in relation to health, education, transport and the like—in other words, that there is not one single question that it is able to ask on the big issues before the nation today.Yes, we did make announcements under the Natural Heritage Trust during the last election. If Senator Cook would wish to reflect upon history, he will recognise in fact that the timing of the election was during the normal cycle when announcements are made under the Natural Heritage Trust. At this time of the year I am addressing the bids for Natural Heritage Trust grants, and in the next few months we will be making those announcements. This is one year on from the last election. So, yes, it was within the cycle, it was at the appropriate time, and this government was very pleased with those announcements under the Natural Heritage Trust.I might say on that subject that, with regard to Bush Care alone—the revegetation of Australia—this year I expect to approve some 1,700 individual projects across Australia. This is a tremendous commitment by ordinary Australians through such organisations as Landcare to restore the health of the Australian environment. We are proud as a government that we set up the Natural Heritage Trust—$1.5 billion being reinvested in the environment of Australia—and we are proud of the fact that community groups are prepared, with the funding support of government, to lead on it and put in their own labour and their own efforts to help make a difference.The Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program was somewhat similar. That was a $70.4 million project—part of the total $1 billion Federation Fund project—aimed to support communities in their support of historic and cultural assets with grants of up to about $5 million. We are pleased that, out of the 740 applications that we received, we were able to support 60 of those projects across Australia. We would have liked to have been able to support more, but there is not one single project that was not deserving of the funding it received. Interestingly, this Labor opposition has not been able to designate one single project that was not deserving of that support.Yes, this government will use funding from time to time to support community projects, and it will do it properly. I invite Senator Cook to go through the 1,700 approvals that I will make this year in relation to Bush Care. I will invite him to see if he can find one that has been wrongly applied. We exercise this task with care, but we accept the responsibilities of ministers. That means that we do not always accept the officials' advice. We always take the officials' advice into account, but we make the decisions in accordance with the responsibilities we have, and we are proud of that.7599Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that I am questioning him about unethical behaviour by the government at election time. Don't these announcements of over half a billion dollars constitute conclusive evidence not only that the government ignored the caretaker convention which states that `it is desirable, if the decisions concern significant initiatives, that they be announced in advance of the caretaker period in order to avoid controversy' but also that many of the projects announced were obviously and deliberately held back for announcement during the election campaign itself? With regard to your explanation about the appropriate time for announcement, does that mean that you have scant regard for your obligations under the caretaker conventions at election time? The difference between now and last year was that we were having an election, Minister. Maybe you did not notice.7600Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The caretaker convention does not say that if decisions have been made by a government in the lead-up to an election they should not be announced during the following month, or whatever is the period of that election.RF4COOKSenator Cook—It says avoid doing so.BH4Senator HILL—Senator Cook is saying that the announcement should have been made earlier before the election. What I am saying to Senator Cook is that in the normal cycle the decisions were not made until shortly before the election. So in actual fact the announcements were made at the correct time, and Australians benefited from this government that is interested in supporting both our natural and cultural heritage in a way that is unprecedented. If, in 13 years of government, Labor had done more to support the natural, cultural and historical heritage of Australia, all Australians would be better off.76007600Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. May I say that this is a subject which is particularly relevant to this Senate at the moment, since the Senate has spent so much time on it. Will the minister inform the Senate of the environmental and economic benefits of the regional forest agreement that has been finalised for north-east Victoria?7600Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I thank the senator for that important question. The North-East Regional Forest Agreement which has been signed by the Prime Minister and Premier Kennett is an excellent demonstration of this government's ability to produce excellent conservation outcomes while protecting jobs. The RFA, which covers an area of some 2.3 million hectares in north-eastern Victoria, will provide 20 years of security for the timber industry and, more importantly, 20 years of security for those 500 people who depend on that industry for their jobs.This government recognises the important role that the timber industry plays in regional Australia. In the north-east region, milling operations in towns like Mount Beauty, Mansfield, Myrtleford, Whitfield, Corryong and Benalla all play an essential role within the economic and social fabric of these communities. The RFA will maintain timber supplies at current levels and, with increased investment and value adding that will flow from the security of the agreement, both the Commonwealth and Victoria are confident that it will in fact help increase employment in the industry.Through the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program and other arrangements that are being negotiated, we believe that this should also enable the mill in Mount Beauty to be secure. From an environmental perspective, the outcome in the north-east is outstanding—174,000 hectares will be added to the reserve system, which is an increase over the status quo of 42 per cent. The agreement will mean that just under 50 per cent of all public land within the region is preserved within the reserve system.The agreement has, as far as practicable, achieved our national targets on public land. Of particular interest to many will be our decision to protect the Upper Wongungarra catchment, which will be added to the Alpine National Park. This is an area with high quality old-growth forest. Importantly, it will provide a protected habitat for the endangered spotted tree frog. The RFA also provides enhanced protection for other rare and threatened species. For example, the agreement establishes a 17,500 hectare special management zone to protect the habitat of the long-footed potoroo. Additions to the reserve system will also provide protected habitat for the powerful and sooty owls, the yellow bellied glider and the gang-gang cockatoo.This is the third RFA signed in Victoria and the fifth nationally. As a result of those five RFAs, over 800,000 hectares has been added to the reserve system since the Howard government was elected in 1996—an outstanding result for Australian forests. Over the coming months we will be concluding RFAs for another six regions. By any measure, this government has stayed true to the intent of the National Forest Policy Statement negoti ated by the former Keating government—an initiative which we have been happy to acknowledge and to implement. The only thing missing in the equation is legislation which will further increase the security provided to those working in the timber industry, and that legislation is before the Senate at the moment. The issue now is whether the Labor Party is finally prepared to come on board and support what this government is doing in providing security for jobs and better environmental outcomes. (Time expired)7601Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his very informative answer. Some of us Victorian senators do go outside of our own suburbs. Will the minister inform the Senate whether the Victorian experience can be extended to the rest of Australia for the benefit of all Australians?7601Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Certainly, as I was saying, we have further RFAs to be concluded in Victoria, in New South Wales and in Queensland. It really depends, in the two latter states, on the attitude of the state Labor governments, which has not always been helpful, and the attitude of the Commonwealth Labor opposition. The trouble is: federal Labor has already lost the support of its own traditional constituency.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! You can take a point of order, Senator Faulkner, but I should say the bill should not be being discussed at the present time. It is on the Notice Paper . So, Senator Hill, be careful not to intrude into that debate.BH4Senator HILL—I am not discussing the bill. What I am saying is that the traditional constituency of the Labor Party, the union movement, has lost faith in the ALP over forest policy. It has condemned the position of the ALP over forest policy and in particular its refusal to support RFA legislation and its refusal to give the workers greater security.76017601Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister finally put aside his bluster and take this opportunity to explain why he and his colleague Senator Hill chose to ignore nine of the 17 federation cultural and heritage projects which were rated by the two departments as very high, that is, with a score of 19 to 24 out of a maximum 24 points, and 70 of the 114 projects which were rated above the proposed 15-point threshold, in order to favour the 16 projects which were rated below the 15-point threshold?7601Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This is a classic example of the sort of question that you hoped you would not have to ask because time would have run out. Unfortunately, they have been caught short and, as a result, we are required to go over the same old ground. There was no such thing as a threshold. There was simply an arbitrary and gratuitous decision by the combined task force, presumably to try to alleviate the load of the decision makers by indicating that there were 114 projects that rated 15 points or more. It was being gently suggested that we might like to confine our attention to projects above the line. We were grateful for all of the point scores we got, but let it be perfectly clear that never at any stage was either department in the business of recommending or advising us on any particular project.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Did you agree to those guidelines? You agreed to them.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, there is an appropriate time for you to ask questions and debate the matter.LD4Senator ALSTON—What we were required to do was to exercise our discretion and choose the best projects. The sad part is that the Labor Party's approach seems to be no, you do not have to extend yourself, you do not have to go and look at all those other projects. The safe and of course the lazy way out is simply to look at the top 114, probably to go back and complain about being given so many, when one had such a short concentration span.But we did not take the easy way out. We decided that we should examine all of those projects because those who took time to put them together deserve to have been properly considered. Of course, there were a lot from the other side of the chamber. It did not matter to those on the Labor Party side of the Senate because they were not particularly interested in any of these policy issue matters or the merits of arguments; they were simply interested in wondering how much more dirt they could dig up and use during the campaign. We were much more concerned to ensure that after 13 years of neglect we did come up with the best possible selection of 60 projects, cultural and heritage, and we did that. All I can say is that, if the Labor Party has any brains at all, they will keep Senator Carr well and truly hidden for the next 25 days. They will make sure that Senator Carr is nowhere to be seen because all he can do is cost Labor votes in any election whenever it might be held.7602Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the minute to him from his department dated 20 August 1998, and ask: how can he claim that the department's actions were arbitrary and gratuitous? How can he claim that the department had said no 15-point threshold or benchmark, when the department's submission on which the ministers based their decision made it clear that the purpose of the submission was `to provide you with a list of highly rated . . . projects from which to select'? Is it not true that these highly rated projects are included in the submission as attachment B? Is it not also true that attachment B comprised only projects which rated 15 points or above? I repeat, Minister, how can you claim that there was no 15-point cut-off?7602Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I was not talking about the actions of the department; I was saying that the decision to simply draw a line under 114 projects was not what we asked for. We asked for points assessments of all projects so that we could choose the most appropriate 60 projects, and that is what we did. The department might have thought they were being helpful, and we are not critical of that. As I say, they were probably brought up under the Labor government to think that, if you gave them any more than the bare minimum, they would be exhausted—they would not be able to focus, they would be wondering why they were being put upon to that extent. We were conscious of the need to give every project a fair scrutiny. That is what we did. The trouble seems to be that the Labor Party bitterly resents the fact that all 60 projects stand up.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—On a point of order, Madam President: I refer you to that part of Senator Alston's answer where he said that the Labor Party should keep Senator Carr out of the arena for the next 25 days. Is it in order for Senator Alston to be announcing the date of the Victorian election for 18 September, 25 days from now, or should that be left to the Premier of Victoria?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice7602760215:05:007602Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday I was asked a question by Senator Stott Despoja about the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act and the establishment of a radiation and health safety advisory council. I sought an answer from the minister. I seek leave to incorporate that answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator STOTT DESPOJA —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 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? SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The ARPANS Act (1998) establishes a Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council to advise the CEO of ARPANSA. The Minister appoints members of Council and has consulted widely in identifying potential Council members.Many suggestions for membership were received, including those from the National Environment Consultative Forum referred to by Senator Stott Despoja in her question.The Minister has reached a decision on membership of the Council and considered all the nominations put forward in making his selection. At this time, the position on the Council which represents the interests of the general public is unfilled.The Minister would like to appoint someone with very wide environmental and public health experience, as ARPANSA's responsibilities cover both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, including issues such as the proposed national radioactive waste repository and questions concerning health risks from mobile phone use.760315:06:007603Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked by Senators Collins, Conroy, Faulkner and Carr today, relating to the distribution of funds for the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects program.After their departments had gone through a rigorous process of ranking projects, Senator Hill and Senator Alston, without departmental scrutiny, got together with a map of marginal seats and their own advisers and put the political fix in on these projects. They elevated 16 projects which ranked below the 15-point threshold to ensure that they had a range of potential announcements across marginal electorates and electorates which were vulnerable to One Nation. When members of the Liberal campaign committee, including Senator Alston and Senator Hill, detected slides in the coalition polling during the campaign, they would roll out a heritage announcement to give the local candidate a big hit in the media—a media bang with the taxpayers' buck; all contrary to our caretaker conventions.But now we have two tables which starkly demonstrate and illustrate the fix that went in by the ministers. The first chart, this predominantly blue chart—blue for coalition seats—shows that 33 of the 39 grants were rolled out in the election campaign in an attempt to save coalition members from electoral oblivion. There are One Nation vulnerable seats here like Herbert, Maranoa, Wide Bay and, later on, Leichhardt. All seats which might have had a state One Nation member of parliament within their boundaries, or one directly adjacent, and were under threat got prompt attention. Senator Hill in particular, it seems, really fixed his attention on Bass to save his ministerial colleague Warwick Smith. Bass got three grants: one on 8 September and two on 16 December last year.There are government marginals here like Leichhardt, Lilley, Macquarie, Deakin, Gilmore and Adelaide—all receiving special attention during the election campaign. How many Labor seats received a grant? I invite you to look at the red on the same table—Canberra and Fraser. Those particular grants were announced by Senator Reid because the polling showed that her Senate seat was under threat; it was being eroded by the Democrats. On that basis, you could say that 35 of the 39 announcements were made to see coalition members save their skins in the election. Senator Reid announced two Federation and Cultural Heritage Program projects in the ACT worth $1.15 million. She also announced $10.5 million worth of other federation grants—the National Centre for Christianity, plus the Federation Centre. And she helped turn the sod with John Howard for the National Museum. Senator Reid was very busy with heritage issues during the last election campaign.After the election, in a global press release, Senator Hill and Senator Alston announced the leftovers. That is illustrated on a separate chart—again, Labor in red, coalition seats in blue and Independents in yellow. I invite you to look at the difference. In blue are the grants announced in the coalition seats in the election campaign, and in this chart are the grants announced after the campaign. This chart is top-heavy with Labor electorates. That is the difference. There are two in the seat of Sydney; there is one in Prospect; there is one in Reid; there are two in Perth. There is a joint project in Batman, Jagajaga and Scullin, which are three adjoining Labor seats. All in all, out of the 28 grants announced after the election, 14 were in Labor seats and three in Independent seats. The problem is that Senator Alston and Senator Hill have been caught out here. They are as guilty as hell of rorting this project. This is pork-barrelling, and Senator Hill and Senator Alston should come clean.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, would you like to withdraw the allegation that people have rorted, please?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I do not think that is unparliamentary. With respect, Madam Deputy President, I believe that Senator Hill and Senator Alston have rorted this process. I do not think it is unparliamentary, and I do not think I am required to withdraw. Unless you sought advice and persisted on that, I certainly would not withdraw. This is a fix, a rort, a pork-barrel, and I do not believe the word `rort' is unparliamentary in this context. I ask you to seek advice, and if you receive advice—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I will seek advice and check what you have said.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I make the serious point, Madam Deputy President, that I do not believe it is unparliamentary. It is a rort.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I will seek advice.15:12:007604Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—In question time this afternoon I listened in amazement to the tirade of abuse from the opposition concerning the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program. They have talked about dates for notification, numbers and colours in a desperate search to find this government's Ros Kelly memorial whiteboard. It is intriguing for us on this side of the chamber because this is the second time that the opposition have engaged in this desperate search. These people have a master's degree in pork-barrelling. Once again, they are trying to find justification for criticising this government's commendable efforts to make community based grants. They started with the Natural Heritage Trust. They insulted the Baillieu family and never apologised. They insulted my colleague Senator Winston Crane and his family and they never apologised. They never found a skerrick of evidence of a problem. And now they are at it again.The criteria and the process for the awarding of these grants are very clear. A total of 741 applications were received and the projects were evaluated by a task force made up of officers from DOCA and the department of the environment. The annoying part this afternoon concerning the announcement during the caretaker government period led me to glance at the media release put out by Senator Faulkner on 22 February 1996 during his dying days as minister for the environment. Interestingly, he talked about $1.3 million going towards the preservation of an albatross and the fact that albatrosses are a symbol of hope. There is an albatross hanging around the neck of Senator Faulkner. It is a dead albatross. It is called pork-barrelling and the Ros Kelly memorial whiteboard and long will it stay there. We know where the pork barrelling started. As I have said, Senator Faulkner and his colleagues have a master's degree in this subject.Our projects, the federation projects, were evaluated against six very important criteria, the significance, the lasting nature, the appropriateness of them for the Centenary of Federation, the benefits to the broad community and partnerships and funding. I am very pleased to say that in my own state of South Australia some particularly commendable projects received funding. Among them are the Ayers House museum development and the Port Lincoln Civic Hall. Interestingly enough also, the Commonwealth railway museum received funding. I find that quite amusing. During their period in government the Labor Party managed to turn the entire Commonwealth railway system into a museum, so it is interesting that they should be grizzling about funding to adequately and appropriately conserve what is left of it. The Mawson collection, commemorating the incredibly brave expedition of Sir Douglas Mawson, also received funding. In South Australia $6.5 million worth of funding was allocated. I am very pleased to say that all of those communities were very happy with the allocation. How interesting it is that no-one on the opposition side has criticised one single project. There is nothing in there that they are prepared to criticise.The facts about this issue are that the task force appointed gave a project score of four for each of the six criteria, leading to a score out of a total of 24. Ministers made their decisions using both sets of advice available to them, together with their own allocation, and projects were then selected for eligibility. It is a joke to sit in here during question time today and hear questions coming from the other side related to pork-barrelling and rorting of community grants when the searching and the trawling that went on through the Natural Heritage Trust and the trawling that is going on today have not turned up a single thing. Yet still they go on. I suppose the only thing we on this side of the chamber can do is take heart that there are no questions on the economy, because the economy is in very good shape. (Time expired)15:17:007605Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Then Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, let the cat out of the bag on election night, when he told ABC television:Specific project announcements were always held back for announcement during the election campaign.Never mind that that is grossly improper under the caretaker provisions that bind a government during an election campaign. Those provisions are there to make sure that governments do not use the public purse to buy their way into office. What did Tim Fischer say? He said:Specific project announcements were . . . held back for announcement during the election campaign.Tim Fischer is guilty on two fronts. The first is that he was being too honest. He was not supposed to blow John Howard's cover by doing that. He let the cat out of the bag. The second is that he is guilty of understatement. The total value of the projects announced during the election campaign was $557 million—over half a billion dollars that this government announced during the election campaign in order to buy their way back into elected office because they had the GST as an albatross around their neck. Let us be honest about this. That is what that was all about.I am not saying that many of the projects that were announced are not worthy; obviously many are. But the timing of the government's announcement is unethical and is in conflict with the caretaker provisions. That is shonky, it has to be said, and the taxpayers in Australia do not expect their taxpayers' dollars to be purloined by a government to slip itself into office by announcing projects at an electorally sensitive time in order to buy votes. No taxpayer thinks that is a proper use of their dollar.Let me give you a few examples, Madam Deputy President, of what I mean about the timing here. There was—no doubt a worthy project—$2 million for the Maroondah heritage estate in the city of Maroondah in Victoria. It was timed to help Mr Phillip Barresi, who holds the marginal seat of Deakin, where there was a margin of 2.5 per cent—very marginal in a GST election. Remember when I recite these dates that the election was on 3 October. When did Senator Alston announce the grant for the $2 million for the heritage estate in Mr Barresi's electorate? On 23 September, within the caretaker period, 10 days out from the election. That is when he announced it. Is that funny timing? Why did he have to announce it then, given that he announced all the losing bids after the election? Couldn't he have announced it then? Of course, in a marginal seat of 2.5 per cent it is to do with trying to influence the voters to vote for the coalition, overcome the GST.It goes further. What did the city of Maroondah expect when it came to when this announcement would be made? They understood the announcement would be made in November. They got a hell of a shock when it was made before the election—on 23 September, 10 days before the election—because they were led to believe they were going to be told the outcome of their project application in November. Was this propitious timing or not? Let us see what then happened. Mr Phillip Barresi, who is the sitting member—with a 2.5 per cent margin, remember—got a supplement into the Maroondah Post, the local throwaway in his electorate, on 29 September, just a few days before the election itself. Fair enough, but, in order to have prepared the elaborate piece of publication and inserted it into the throwaway going into each home in that electorate, he must have known beforehand that this announcement was coming. If he did not, it was the slickest piece of publicity that anyone has ever seen. It strains credulity to believe that there was no foreknowledge in this case.That is one example. There is another example, the Frankston community arts centre—again, no doubt, a worthy project in its own right. This relates to Mr Bruce Billson, the coalition marginal member for that seat. Mr Billson is sitting on a 3.4 per cent margin. Mr Billson is so well thought of by this government that they flew him to Adelaide to assist in the selection of the Natural Heritage Trust selections. He sat at the back of the room in order to aid the government—no doubt with his deep knowledge of marginal electorates. (Time expired)15:22:007606Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—That was a valiant effort, Senator Cook. Who would have thought the Labor Party's stocks had dropped so low, both in this place and in the electorate, that this is the gravest issue that they can bring before the Senate today? Their stocks have dropped so low that Senator Faulkner has now reached the stage where he no longer knows what is parliamentary and what is not parliamentary, as in some of his appalling behaviour during question time today.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I hope you are not reflecting upon another member.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I am not reflecting on the member. I am only discussing the behaviour and the appalling stocks of the Labor Party, Madam Deputy President. There is no issue of any importance that this opposition, this Labor Party, has chosen to raise at any stage during question time this week. Where are the opposition's questions to the government asking it to explain its success in giving us the lowest unemployment figures for 10 years? Where are the opposition's questions to the government asking it to explain how it delivered the lowest interest rates in 10 years? Where are the opposition's questions to the government asking it to explain its success in giving us a continuing low inflation rate, the lowest and continuing lowest for 10 years? Where are the opposition's questions asking the government to explain its success in having the strongest economy in the area and possibly the strongest in the world?We have not had any questions from the Labor Party on those important issues—which every day Australians are interested in, because they mean jobs to them, income to them and a strong standard of living.Where are the opposition's questions to the government asking it to explain its success in delivering business confidence? Not one question. Not one question from the opposition about any issue of significance to the Australian people today. The Australian electorate has judged the Labor Party and judged them harshly, and they will continue to judge the Labor Party harshly while they continue to raise issues which are of no importance to the electorate at large. They are trying to stir up trouble. They are trying to raise issues when in fact projects under this Natural Heritage Trust are benefiting the people that they are trying to disparage.In each of those areas, there is not one of the projects allocated to any of these areas that they have said is not a worthy project. And yet the opposition come into this chamber and day after day ask questions of total insignificance when there are all the important issues going on in our country today. There are all the successes that this government has had in giving us the strongest economy in the region, in putting people to work. This is something that the Labor Party when they were in government could not do—a party that delivered us 10 or 11 per cent unemployment rates, 17 or 18 per cent interest rates, and inflation rates much higher than we have today. That is all the Labor Party could deliver us when they were in government: not one good bit of news for Australia at any time. They come in here harping and carping about projects that have been allocated to electorates. And in each of those cases they have not once said that the projects that were delivered were not worthy.The ministers responsible had a responsibility to make sure that the money that was allocated to projects was actually allocated to those projects which were most worth while. It is very difficult to allocate projects to Labor Party electorates when they do not hold any. Prior to the last election, the Labor Party held very few seats. Of course there were a number of marginal Liberal seats, because this government won so many seats at the 1996 election that there were bound to be a lot more areas covered by Liberal or National Party held seats.Talking about the area of Australia and the area where many of these natural heritage projects took place, instead of Senator Faulkner showing us a bar graph of seats that are held by Labor and Liberal, perhaps he could have showed us a graph of the area of Australia that was held by government seats. You would find that there are so many areas and so many applications from all of those seats that it was likely that there were always going to be projects allocated in some of those areas that are outside the metropolitan area.I do not know when the Labor Party are going to come to their senses and start to question this government to try to find some information about those things that are happening and things that have been done by this government that are so successful. For heaven's sake, I hope they come to the stage where they start asking questions about why this government is so successful and running the strongest economy in this region. (Time expired)15:27:007607O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—We only had to go to the words of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, himself to understand just what a hole this government has dug itself into on this matter. I know the minister was biting his tongue about the words he uttered when he said that we were digging up a `dead cat that's 12 months old'. He recognised that this is a dead cat that stinks to high heaven. He recognised it in words from his own mouth.You realise that Senator Alston was the Liberal Party campaign director in Victoria. He was well attuned to which were the marginal seats in Victoria, which were the seats that needed propping up. You really have to shake your head when you hear comments such as he made in the answer he made to the second question that he was asked today by the opposition, in relation to grants in Mr Barresi's seat of Deakin. He said, `We were making these announcements at a time suitable for all concerned.' It certainly was suitable for Mr Barresi of Deakin. They were announced so that he could have a newsletter out in his electorate six days after the grant was announced, and he could have a how-to-vote card distributed in his electorate nine days after the grant was announced, mentioning the grants in both of those publications. Anyone who knows how long it takes to have things printed in an election campaign knows that you would be stretching credulity to think that Mr Barresi had not factored that into his campaign. Indeed, he had the advantage of having the Liberal Party campaign director as one of the people signing off on the very grant.The material that Senator Alston had in his hand showed that the overwhelming majority of grants were actually announced in the campaign. And remember there were a number of decisions made before the campaign commenced—only just, but before the campaign commenced, but they were selectively announced. Only those which were deemed to be of advantage to the Liberal Party in their campaign were announced. Certainly no-one was told that they had missed out. We would not want anyone told that they had missed out and being disappointed that the government had not favoured them! The government was trying to wring whatever credibility it could out of the process from those people. And we have the statement that the announcements were made at a time `suitable for all concerned'. Certainly it was suitable for the member for Deakin and the member for Dunkley.There was reference in one of Senator Alston's answers to Ros Kelly. He made an analogy with Ros Kelly and said that it sounds as though nothing has been learnt from that. I will tell the minister what we have learnt from it. If Ros Kelly had to go, then there is no doubt that in this case both Minister Alston and Minister Hill have to go as well. We realise why these ministers are stonewalling, why they refuse to come clean, why they refuse to provide the information that is being asked for, and why they refuse to answer questions which would elicit that information: they know that the more the facts on this matter come out, the deeper the mire they are going to get into on this. Everyone who has listened to question time over the last couple of days would have noticed that there is a deliberate evasion of answering the questions that have been put on this matter, because to answer them will put these ministers even deeper in the mire.This is part of a pattern in which the Deputy Prime Minister said on election night that $557 million in grants were announced during the campaign; they were announced strategically for campaign purposes and in breach of the caretaker convention. When the Deputy Prime Minister says that, there is no answer from Senator Hill, no answer from Senator Alston; they simply refuse to answer the questions and go on with their diatribes against the opposition.Senator Hill answered a question in relation to the RFA. I want to draw an analogy from that answer, because on the eve of the announcement of the Victorian election there was an announcement relating to a Victorian Regional Forest Agreement. He referred in that answer to the protection of the spotted tree frog and the yellow-bellied glider. That is appropriate, because that is about on par with the nature of the improper announcements that were made to save Mr Billson and Mr Barresi. Their benefits were only part of that $557 million in grants announced during the campaign. (Time expired)15:32:007608Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—The opposition's pathetic at tempt to wring something politically damaging to the government out of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects and, more specifically, something against Senators Alston and Hill reflects really nothing more than the parlous policy position that Labor is in. By my adding, I think it has taken up about a dozen questions over the last sitting week without landing a blow, but the opposition persists. It is difficult to see how the opposition can keep it up in the face of such flagging momentum.I have listened very carefully to the various questions over these days and to the answers, and what appears to be the substance of the allegation—I think there are probably three—is first of all that there was political bias in the distribution of the grants. That simply cannot be sustained on any basis. It is simply wrong because, of the 60 successful projects, we know that 38, or 64 per cent, were located in the 62 per cent of electorates held by the coalition; 18, or 30 per cent, were in the 33 per cent of seats held by Labor; and three, or five per cent, were in the five per cent of seats held by the Independents. One project went across multiple electorates. That, on any view, must be a fair distribution. So it simply cannot be sustained—at least that part of the allegation—that there was any political bias in the distribution of the grants.The next allegation seems to be that the grants were in breach of the Australian National Audit Office—the ANAO—guidelines. That cannot be sustained either if you have a look at the facts, as, firstly, it has been made perfectly clear that there was not at any time a recommended list of projects. Certainly, advice was received, and that has been explained in ad nauseam detail by the two ministers who have answered questions in the Senate. It simply shows a failure on the part of the opposition to understand what the responsibility of ministers is when looking at these grants and making these assessments. Quite clearly, ministers have a clear obligation to bring their own independent and objective minds to bear on the advice that they receive in assessing any project—and indeed they would be in breach and it would be dereliction of their duty if they did not bring their own minds to bear on the projects. You certainly do not need to follow bureaucratic advice to the letter; what you need to do is to take it into account.The third complaint, which also cannot be sustained, suggests that projects announced during the 1998 election campaign were in breach of the caretaker convention. Indeed, that seems to have been the gravamen or the substance of the question time matters today. What happened was that all of the projects were selected prior to the election and some were announced during the election. That was not really anything out of the ordinary, because the Labor government did that too, which I will get to in a moment if I have a chance. So it is hard to see how the opposition can keep a straight face when making this allegation. If you actually go to some of the examples of grants that were made during the caretaker period by Labor you can see that they seem to have turned it into an art form, with grants of some $25 million announced by Senator Faulkner on 15 February 1996 for the Paralympic Games. On another occasion $715,000 was announced for the River Murray Corridor of green projects, and so on. It simply cannot be a sustainable objection that any of these grants were made or announced during the caretaker period. It is simply an unwarranted attack and it is time to move on from this. It has not worked. You have not succeeded in establishing any breach of convention or indeed any impropriety. It is simply time to end the bottom drawer paranoia.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations760915:37:007609Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I seek leave to make an explanation under section 191 regarding remarks I made in a speech in the chamber yesterday.Leave granted.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I thank the chamber. In the debate on the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrange ments) Bill 1999 yesterday, I said these words: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.I should have said: `which was fully supported by the Australian Democrats except for Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja.' I would like to make that correction.Notices76097609Senator Jacinta Collins to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on regional employment and unemployment be extended to 2 September 1999.(2) That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on the effectiveness of education and training programs for indigenous Australians be extended to 21 October 1999.Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 132 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) comments by the Director and Operations Manager of Pangea Resources Australia Pty Ltd, Mr Marcis Kurzeme, in the WestAustralian newspaper of 24 August 1999, to the effect that Pangea will abandon its idea to locate an international nuclear waste repository in Western Australia if the proposal meets with continued public opposition, (ii) the strong concerns expressed by senior Western Australian Government figures, including the Premier (Mr Court), the Deputy Premier (Mr Cowan), and the Minister for the Environment (Ms Edwardes), that foreign nuclear waste should not be stored in Western Australia, (iii) the strong commitments expressed by senior Commonwealth Government figures, including the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin), that foreign nuclear waste will not be stored in Australia, and (iv) that these concerns reflect the broader public opposition across Australia to the proposal; and(b) again expresses its fundamental opposition to the proposal by Pangea Resources to situate an international nuclear waste repository in Western Australia, or anywhere else within the territories of the Commonwealth of Australia, on the grounds that such a repository poses significant threats to Australia's environment, public safety and sovereignty.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes, with grave concern: (i) the findings of a study into student poverty by Associate Professor Sue Turale and Dr Janice Newton of the University of Ballarat's School of Nursing, (ii) that these findings showed that student poverty is leading to increased drop-out rates, depression and poor nutrition, and that it is one of Australia's most misunderstood and ignored problems, (iii) that in the days before receipt of wages or income support, some students cannot afford food, medicine or transport, and (iv) that a number of students live well below the poverty line; and(b) urges the Government to: (i) address student poverty as a matter of vital importance, (ii) raise income support levels for students to sustainable, liveable levels, (iii) increase the means test threshold to ensure more students can access income support, and (iv) reduce the age of independence for accessing income support to 18 years of age, in line with legal and community standards of independence.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Senator Herron), no later than 3 pm on the next day of sitting, the following documents provided for the Australia New Zealand Foods Standards Council:(a) Cadmium in Peanuts—Maximum Permitted Concentration (provided for the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council Meeting, 17 December 1998);(b) Development of Joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards as part of the process of Review of the Food Standards Code Draft Policy Document. Dietary Modelling: Principles and Procedures (Australia New Zealand Food Authority, 12 November 1997);(c) Inquiry Report. Proposal 144—Review of the Maximum Permitted Concentrations of Cadmium in Food (provided for the Australia New Zealand Food Authority board meeting, June 1997); and(d) The National Health and Medical Research Council's assessment of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority's Dietary Assessment of Cadmium Consumption (provided for the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council meeting, 3 to 5 August 1999).Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communication, Information Technology and Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in April 2000:(a) the state of the environment of Gulf St Vincent;(b) the expected impacts on that environment; and(c) the possible enhancements to protection measures in relation to that environment.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) Friday, 20 August 1999, marked the 50th anniversary of the first migrant ship, the Fairsea , docking in Newcastle harbour, and (ii) the arrival of the 1896 migrants on the Fairsea from war-torn Europe marked the start of the large post-war boom in migration via the Hunter Valley that did so much to create Australia's multicultural society;(b) appreciates the significant hardship and sacrifice made in the 1940's and 1950's by these Australians in their early days of settlement, in the 10 000-strong spartan settlements of Silver City and Chocolate City at Greta in the New South Wales Hunter Valley;(c) commends the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) for his address on Sunday, 22 August 1999, to the thousand former Greta residents, family and friends of those who journeyed from war-ravaged Europe 50 years ago; and(d) joins with the Minister in saluting the substantial contribution that this post-war wave of immigrants, as well as their descendants, have made to the economic growth and cultural enrichment of Australia.Senator Brown, and also at the request of Senator Bolkus and Senator Greig, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to implement Australia's human rights obligations to children under Articles 37(b) and 40(4) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999 .Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:(1) That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 December 1999: Whether the proposed sale of Australian Defence Industries Ltd (ADI) to Transfield Thomson-CSF has been conducted with the prudence, discretion, integrity, skill and propriety necessary to: (a) protect the value of ADI and its assets, (b) realise the maximum price for ADI and its assets; and (c) protect Australia's national interest, national security and defence relationships from compromise.(2) That, in considering these terms of reference, the committee examine and report on the following issues: (a) whether the actions of the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing, and those of all other parties in the sale process, best served the interests of Australian taxpayers and the broader national interest; and (b) any other issues or questions, reasonably relevant to the terms of reference but not referred to above, which have arisen in the course of the inquiry.Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That, with regard to the current shipment of highly radioactive mixed oxide fuel that will travel past Australia's southern coast through the Tasman Sea on route to Japan, the Senate:(a) notes: (i) that this may be the first of many such shipments of highly radioactive nuclear fuel or waste which may take this route, (ii) that there is no prior notification as to the route these shipments take, (iii) that there is a lack of an adequate liability and compensation regime in the event of an accident involving such shipments, and (iv) the strong concern of New Zealand and other South Pacific countries regarding these shipments through the Tasman Sea and the South Pacific;(b) deplores the Australian Government's effective endorsement of these highly radioactive shipments and its active discouragement of South Pacific countries from pursuing this issue; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) revoke its endorsement of shipments of highly radioactive nuclear material through the Tasman Sea and South Pacific, (ii) initiate a comprehensive and open scientific study of the potential environmental risks of these shipments, (iii) press the governments of Japan, France and the United Kingdom to enter into negotiations with potentially-affected countries to establish an effective system of prior notification and a comprehensive liability regime to cover shipments of highly radioactive material, and (iv) join with New Zealand and other South Pacific countries in registering strong concern about these shipments at the Thirtieth South Pacific Forum, to be held in Palau in October 1999.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the comments of Professor Nadine Strossen, President of the American Civil Liberties Union, that the Government's internet censorship laws are `draconian and repressive', and (ii) the specific concerns of Professor Strossen that: (a) it is not possible to draw a meaningful and coherent distinction between what should and should not be banned, (b) the child protection argument advanced by the Government to support the legislation has previously been rejected by the United States Supreme Court, (c) the internet cannot be censored for children without censorship for everybody, and (d) the internet censorship legislation is vague and might reflect the values of those enforcing the laws; and(b) calls on the Government to repeal the internet censorship legislation.Business76127612Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 25 August 1999 be interrupted at approximately 6.00 p.m., but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senators Mason and Ridgeway to make their first speeches without any question before the chair.Leave of Absence7612Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—proposed:That leave of absence be granted to Senator Parer for the period 23 August to 26 August 1999 and to Senators Bourne and Payne for the period 26 August to 2 September 1999, on account of parliamentary business overseas.15:45:007612Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—by leave—I thank the Senate for allowing me to go to East Timor for the popular consultation. I also inform the Senate that in my absence Senator Andrew Bartlett will be acting whip for the Democrats.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees761276127612Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999 be extended to 21 September 1999.76127612Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Knowles)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999 be extended to 25 August 1999.Notices76127612Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the disallowance of certain instruments under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 , postponed till 26 August 1999.Motion (by Senator Allison)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 136 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on superannuation and financial services, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Business76127612Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:(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. Committees761376137613Motion (by Senator George Campbell) agreed to: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.76137613Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Gibson) agreed to: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.76137613Motion (by Senator Quirke) agreed to:(1) That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, agreed to on 1 July 1998 and varied on 9 March 1999 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.76137613Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request Senator McKiernan) agreed to: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.Bills7613s2257613Motion (by Senator Harris) agreed to: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.Motion (by Senator Harris) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.761315:50:007613Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Senate has proved its worth to the Australian people on many occasions, most recently with the Goods and Services Tax.We need a strong and independent Senate to control the excesses of government, and to represent the 1 in 5 voters who have been effectively disenfranchised by the two-party system.Our federal bicameral system of government consists of two separately constituted legislatures with equal power, each to act as a balance on the other, and to offer a degree of representation and accountability that is unachievable with a unicameral system.The division of powers between the House of Representatives and the Senate helps to safeguard against the abuse of power by government.A functional Senate is the best protection against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Federal Executive that we have.Walter Bagehot, the famous English economist and journalist, issued the following warning in his book `The English Constitution':`The most dangerous of all sinister interests is that of the executive government, because it is the most powerful. It is perfectly possible—it has happened, and will happen again—that the cabinet, being very powerful in the Commons, may inflict minor measures on the nation which the nation did not like, but which it did not understand enough to forbid. If, therefore, a tribunal of revision can be found in which the executive, though powerful, is less powerful, the government will be the better; the retarding chamber will impede minor instances of parliamentary tyranny'This warning is as relevant to Australia in 1999, as it was to England in 1861.As stated in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, if a bad government possesses all powers, then all powers may be abused, but a strong Senate in a bicameral system acts as a safety mechanism against despotism, corruption, or ineptitude.In order to offer the high level of representation and protection envisioned by the founders of the Constitution, it was necessary to constitute and elect each house by a separate distinctive process.The Senate is elected by proportional representation, unlike the House of Representatives, in order to best reflect the diversity of electoral opinion in Australian.The states are also guaranteed equal representation in the Senate, and this provides a crucial balance to the numerical advantage enjoyed by the more populous states in the House of Representatives.Due to the rigid two-party system and compulsory preferential system in Australia, virtually all votes in the House of Representatives ultimately go to either the Labor party or the Coalition, and just 14 independents have managed to win seats in the House of Representatives since 1946.This has resulted in the two-party domination and hegemony of parliamentary debate and economic and social policy in Australia, and the imposition on an unwilling electorate of all sorts of objectionable policies ranging from multiculturalism to National Competition Policy.This is an unacceptable situation for the 20% of voters who voted for someone other than Labor or the Coalition in the House of Representatives in the 1998 federal election.For these voters who have been effectively disenfranchised by the two party system, the Senate offers the only relief, where it is possible for independent candidates and small political parties to regularly get elected.The operation of the Senate in fulfilling its constitutional role of countervailing government power and operating as a house of review has been the source of constant complaint from governments for many years, regardless whether Labor or the Coalition has been in power.That the Senate fulfils its constitutional role very effectively is irrelevant to government politicians, who view it as a threat and maintain that the Senate `destabilises the political system'. Yet when in opposition, these same politicians take full advantage of the operation of the Senate to further their own political goals.The fact that the House of Representatives is dissatisfied with the powers and the conduct of the Senate at times is evidence in itself of the necessity of the Senate.The easiest way for the government to obtain a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives is simply to get more votes buy enacting legislation that is more acceptable to the Australian people.Methods to hamstring the Senate include replacing proportional representation with preferential voting, changing the number of senators representing each state, or imposing electoral thresholds.In 1988, the Australian people wisely rejected a referendum to alter parliamentary terms so that all senators were elected at the same time. This would have increased the chance of one party or the other winning a senate majority.This bill will preserve the current operation of the Senate by entrenching proportional representation as the method of electing the Senate.As this is a constitutional amendment bill, it must be passed by an absolute majority in both houses of parliament.It must then be put to the Australian people by referendum according to section 128 of the Constitution.Item 1 of Schedule 1 of the bill will repeal the first paragraph of section 7 of the Constitution and substitute:`The Senate shall be composed of Senators for each state, directly chosen by the people of the state, voting as one electorate, using a method of proportional representation that shall be uniform for all the states'.Item 2 of Schedule 1 will repeal second paragraph of section 7, which will remove the ability of the Commonwealth to allow the Queensland Government to divide the state into divisions for the election of senators.Items 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 add to end of section 122 of the Constitution: `subject to this section' and `A senator to represent such territory shall be directly chosen by the people of the territory voting as one electorate, using a method of proportional representation that shall be uniform for all such territories.'The effect of items 3 and 4 is to ensure that a senator for any territory acquired by the Commonwealth will be elected in accordance with section 7 of the Constitution.These changes, coupled with the requirement under section 24 of the constitution to maintain twice the number of House of Representative seats as Senators, will make it very difficult for a government to change the Senate status quo which has served us so well.History has shown that as political power concentrates into fewer hands, accountability decreases, while bad policy and the potential for corruption increases.John Stuart Mill said in his book, `Representative Government':`The consideration which tells most, in my judgment, in favour of two Chambers (and this I do regard as of some moment) is the evil effect produced upon the mind of any holder of power, whether an individual or an assembly, by the consciousness of having only themselves to consult. It is important that no set of persons should, in great affairs, be able, even temporarily, to make their sic volo prevail without asking any one else for his consent. A majority in a single assembly, when it has assumed a permanent character—when composed of the same persons habitually acting together, and always assured of victory in their own House—easily becomes despotic and overweening'.(Overweening means to be conceited or arrogant.)The Australian people have by right of the Constitution the Senate as a second house of review, and it would be in their best interests to resist all attempts to nobble it, whether by cajolery or threat.The necessity for a strong and effective house of review is now greater than ever due to the entrenchment of the two-party system in Australian politics and the increasing power and domination of the Executive over the legislature.The latent danger for the Senate and the Australian people is that section 7 of the Constitution enables the government to fundamentally change the way the Senate functions without a referendum.Evidently the founders of the constitution underestimated the determination of the two-party body politic to give themselves more power by neutralising the Senate under the guise of `providing stable government'.Only with a referendum can the Australian people enshrine the Senate in its current form in our Constitution.The referendum in November should be used to the defeat the republic, which will only give more power to the government.A second referendum should also be put to the Australian people to preserve the Senate in its present form, which is the best way to keep the government honest and accountable.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) adjourned. Miscellaneous761515:50:007615Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 268 standing in my name for today, 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, be taken as a formal motion.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There is an objection.761515:51:007615Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, which is to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 268.I do this because, while I note that there has been a move to not give formality from both the Labor and the government side of the house, this is an important public matter. We have a crisis in the forests which is at the moment nationwide but which has come to a head in Western Australia. That crisis has now reached a point where citizens who have been peacefully protesting in the forests of Western Australia over the last weekend were set upon by a masked group of men, who were pro-logging, armed with baseball bats and other weapons. They were in fear of their lives and in fact had their lives threatened.It is clear to everybody with an objective point of view that this situation has not been helped but has been inflamed by the very minister appointed by the Prime Minister to help this matter come to a solution—the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey. Even his colleagues at state level in Western Australia have found that this minister, rather than helping the situation, has made it worse. The environment minister in Western Australia, Cheryl Edwardes, has accused Mr Tuckey of inflaming the forestry debate and has told him to `grow up and shut up'. Just today the West Australian news paper, not known to be vocal in favour of conservation, had this to say:Mr Tuckey is not noted for adopting a conciliatory approach to problems and many people fail to understand why Prime Minister John Howard appointed him to such a sensitive portfolio.The passage of time has done little to ease their concerns. Preaching a scientific solution . . . while acting like a boofhead is clearly counterproductive.Those are very strong words about a failed minister in a portfolio which has been failed because the Prime Minister himself—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam Deputy President, I do not like interrupting but I seek leave to make a 10-second statement which might save some time for Senator Brown.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Leave is granted.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I was just going to suggest that we will support the suspension so that we can actually have a debate on the substantive motion. If we can actually proceed to the debate, that will mean we can get on to the substantive debate rather than discuss the suspension motion for the next few minutes. We will support the suspension of standing orders.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—I was going to speak on this, irrespective of Senator Campbell's intervention. If Senator Brown wants to finish, that is fine and then I will speak. If he has finished, I will speak now.Government senators interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will continue. Through you, Madam Deputy President: I would have agreed to your proposition, Senator Campbell, but as there is not unanimity on it I will continue at this stage. The point here is not just the failure of this appointment but the determination of the Prime Minister to put Wilson Tuckey into this position.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please refer to the minister by his correct title.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Prime Minister knew his record just the same as everybody else did, both inside the parliament and in the public domain. This is the Prime Minister who said he would govern for all of us. This is the Prime Minister who is, in effect, a Jekyll and Hyde when it comes to the forests issue. He wants to present himself as a Jekyll but in fact he has, through Mr Tuckey, presented the Hyde face, the dark and antisocial face of the debate in this country. Instead of elevating the debate he has thrown a firecracker into it, and that is in the proven form of Wilson Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation.If the minister were to fulfil his obligation not just to the Crown but to the people of Australia, he would have been putting this debate on a win-win basis. The vexatious forest industry is destroying much of the natural heritage of this country against the wishes of 80 per cent of Australians, not least the Western Australians, Tasmanians, Victorians and New South Wales people who are directly involved so far in this RFA process. The Prime Minister should have been in the business and in the process of getting this industry relocated, with jobs safe in the plantation basis which is available. But since the regional forest agreements came in, the jobs have been shed from the industry, as we knew the woodchip industry would have it. In Tasmania 480 jobs have been shed since the regional forest agreement came in. Where has been the minister's condemnation of the woodchip industry for shedding those jobs? (Time expired)15:56:007616Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—Despite some of the interjections from those opposite, I am not trying to waste time on this issue. There are two or three points that should be made. Firstly, I think the question—whether a censure motion of a minister should ever be put in this chamber without debate—should be decided now, and the answer is no. I do not think you can take those motions as formal motions without hearing the arguments for and against, especially the arguments for.I do not think it would have been appropriate for us to vote on censuring a minister of the Crown without hearing the arguments. It is appropriate on a whole range of other issues—otherwise this chamber would be totally bogged down—but on a censure motion itself I do not think that is possible. That is the first point I wanted to make. I apologise to the whip. If he gave some indication that we would deal with this formally, I certainly was not consulted. Even in a democratic, centralist unit like the Labor Party, we individual Labor senators have some rights occasionally to put a point of view.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Except on the republic.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—If you can find a royalist in the Labor ranks, you name them.AW5CARRSenator Carr—It was from a former Democrat!UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—That is right. There is a secondary issue involved here that I am uncertain of—and that is only through failing memory as an ageing apparatchik that is nearer the door to leaving the chamber forever—and that is the efficacy of moving in this chamber a censure motion of someone in another chamber. I have a dim memory that the coalition here has done that in the past, but I cannot remember. Senator Brown may have looked up the precedents on this and may be able to assist me, because he will have a right to respond if this debate is not fully occupied. I do not know that it is a great system if we can censure someone in another chamber who is not here to defend themselves. On the other hand, Senator Brown's party is not represented in the House of Representatives, so I understand why it may have to be taken up here.But I do have a difficulty. I do not recall the Labor Party, and I stand ready to be corrected, in my time in this chamber moving a censure motion against someone in another chamber. I have said before that I think censure motions are pretty much devalued in this chamber through overuse. The last one carried here was when Senator Hill was censured, and it was the flimsiest one I have ever seen in terms of a substantive case against a minister. We all voted out of form on that but, you know, it was not the toughest case ever run against a minister.In conclusion, I also put on record my regrets that I have never had a censure motion even put against me, let alone carried, in this chamber. I do not know whether Senator Brown would consider attaching my name to Mr Tuckey's, just to help me out here. You can imagine the tragic circumstances when you front up to the preselection panel and the first questions is: Senator Ray, why have you never been censured in the Senate? Shamefully, you have to admit that you are so well-behaved and have such propriety that in fact you have never ever managed to provoke a censure motion against you.Whether censure motions should ever be regarded seriously, given their rather tawdry history in this chamber, I do not know, but I have to respect the fact that Senator Brown may take them very seriously and may have a strong case to put. We do not want to waste too much time today but we would like to give him the opportunity to put those views, because I think he feels very strongly on them. But I do put Senator Brown on notice that this is a sort of one-off support on a censure motion, that we would like them to be taken seriously and not moved week by week. I am not saying that Senator Brown would do so, but it is a rather serious step.If Senator Brown is given the opportunity to respond, I would ask him—or any coalition senators—to indicate to me whether there has been a precedence for this chamber moving a motion against a minister in another chamber. I have a feeling, just in the back of my memory, that there might have been, and maybe we will get that checked. I notice that Senator Crane is giving me some body language that it has never been done.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Not that I know of.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—Not that you know of; that is entirely possible, but we will at least have that—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Winston is encyclopaedic on these things.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell. Senator Crane should not be interjecting out of his seat, either. I would suggest a check with Odgers .UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—We know what you are encyclopaedic about—hiring aircraft; so we will not proceed with that today. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Ray, there is a list in Odgers , in chapter 19, for you to pursue. Senator Brown, I am sorry, you have no right of reply on the suspension motion. Senator Ray is leading us all astray.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—That was just my invitation.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, you now have to move your procedural motion; that has been given precedence.7618Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notion of motion No. 268 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.761816:03:007618Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move: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.This motion is a censure of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, because of his failure to mitigate the forest conflict, particularly in Western Australia, and in fact the way in which he has inflamed that conflict. I want to respond to Senator Ray, firstly, and say that I understand there have been similar censure motions before but, of course, it is logical that the Senate must be in a position to be able to censure an aberrant minister in the House of Representatives, where the government has the numbers to prevent any censure being put forward if the circumstances arise. That is part of the fundamental independence of the two houses.Let me assure Senator Ray that I do not raise this matter lightly or frivolously. It is a very serious matter and, as a conservationist, I find it particularly serious that this minister has not fulfilled at all his portfolio responsibilities for conservation, let alone conservation of forests. In fact, in every move, every statement and every action he has made since that appointment by the Prime Minister, he has vilified conservationists. He has added to the unpopular moves to put the Australian forests in line for further destruction and he has also, I believe, deceived the very people he purports to support—that is, the workers in the industry.And there I come back to my final submission in the earlier debate. Since the regional forest agreement, which was touted to make safe the jobs of those in the industry, was signed in Tasmania, 480 jobs have been lost in the industry. Since woodchipping arrived in Australia in 1969, which has seen 20,000 jobs lost out of the industry, the whole process has been not only kept up in the wake of the regional forest agreements but accelerated. Mr Tuckey has done nothing about that. In fact, he supports regional forest agreement legislation which does nothing at all to protect or compensate workers in their jobs or workers who lose their jobs. In fact, what he has helped to bring before this parliament is a bill containing a massive compensation clause for the real victors in this process—that is, the giant woodchip companies. Under section 7 of that legislation, with this minister's support, they would be given multimillion dollar compensation from the taxpayers of Australia, through the federal government, if in some future case they are denied access to the wild forests of Australia because the public demanded and sought federal action to protect those forests.I predict that that is going to happen. The regional forest agreement that Wilson Tuckey, the minister, has become the chief advocate for is a prescription for broadscale destruction of forests from Western Australia through to Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales and extending into south-east Queensland. But the Australian people are not going to stand for it. The opinion polls repeatedly show that the vast majority of Australians out there—be they Liberal, National Party, One Nation, Green, Democrat or Labor supporters—are opposed to the continued destruction of our wild forests.I ask all senators to look at those figures, because that is the feeling we should be representing. Minister Tuckey had the opportunity to usher in a win-win situation where those forests would be protected. This parliament has the power and the ability to give transitional funding to the enormous plantation base which can supply all of Australia's forest needs and which, with downstream processing, could have created, and should be creating, thousands of jobs. Instead of that, he has gone for the failed past prescription of keeping the big woodchip corporations in the jarrah and karri forests, in the world heritage value forests of Tasmania and in the rainforests.Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson, you should see the massive pile of rainforest woodchips now on the Burnie wharf. For a quick profit, these ancient ecosystems are ready to be transported to the Japanese pulp and paper mills in the coming months. That is beside the enormous pile of eucalyptus woodchips on the same wharf. It is an override of an earlier move by Burnie City Council not to expand that wharf. Now they are going for a third pile of woodchips in this age of regional forest agreements—a la Minister Wilson Tuckey—which not only does not lead to a wind-down of this destruction but leads to wholesale slaughter and puts the forests at the behest of those sitting in the boardrooms of a few big woodchip corporations.With them go the jobs. Woodchipping is not a job creator; it is a job destroyer. I feel sorry for the Forest Protection Society, which sides with the woodchip corporations and with Minister Wilson Tuckey in this process. I understand that, in recent times, of those 480 jobs lost in Tasmania 40 were out of the industry that transports the logs to the ports of Tasmania and to the woodchip mills. More than 30 of those were cardholders for the Forest Protection Society. What do they get from this society—this front for the woodchip corporations—for their adherence to it, for turning up at protest meetings and for their vilification of conservationists?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—What do your people get? The dole!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Abetz supports this: they got the sack. Worse than that, these people have very big investments in the machinery which they thought would be sustained. They were promised that the regional forest agreements would make their jobs safe. When they go to the wall, the bailiff moves in and their houses go as well.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—You would do that to all of them.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Abetz interjects. In the Tasmanian parliament 15 years ago I moved to have legislation making the woodchip corporations underwrite these contracts for these cartage contractors and people in the forests, but neither Labor in Tasmania nor the Liberals have ever done that, because they would end up being the lackeys of the big woodchip corporations. It is not in their interest to underwrite anybody, least of all the workers. They know that their profit line is enhanced by getting rid of the workers, and that is why I am disgusted with the behaviour of this minister. He is not a conservationist—he has never purported to be one; the Prime Minister knows he is not—and he is in favour of destruction of the forests. As minister for forestry, he purports to be a supporter of jobs in the industry, and so does Prime Minister Howard, but everywhere that they sign these regional forest agreements the job slaughter goes on.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Ha!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Abetz laughs at that, but it is no laughing matter for those people in Tasmania who have gone to the wall and who have been fooled, deceived and let down by this disgusting regional forest agreement process now overseen by this failed minister. Worse than that—and that is the reason behind this censure motion—this minister has deliberately inflamed the situation. He accepted an iron bar gift from loggers. I do not know whether these logger vigilantes were there on the acceptance podium with him just a couple of weeks ago. This is a symbol of violence from this minister, who should stand for peace and creativity in the forests. He is a man who talked about war in the forests in Western Australia when he should have been talking about peace. He is a man who said that costs should be reclaimed from the arrested conservationists who had been behaving in an allegedly illegal way, but he has not called for a cost restitution from the thugs, some of whom I daresay he has rubbed shoulders with when they went into the bush—the peaceful bush—on the weekend to beat up and intimi date citizens simply because they had a different point of view and had the guts to be out there in the forest peacefully defending it.That is the behaviour that leads to a police state. That is the behaviour that pulls the rug from under democratic norms. That is the behaviour of violence. That is the behaviour of failure, not of success. This minister deserves censuring. He has not got an apologetic bone in his body. Maybe that is part of politics, but we should be able to expect sense from him. We should be able to expect a move for a win-win situation, and we should be able to expect him to carry out the responsibilities of his portfolios.Minister Tuckey says he speaks frequently with the Prime Minister. I would like to know how much Prime Minister John Howard has goaded him into the destructive attitude he has taken in an already volatile situation in Western Australia, let alone around the rest of the country. It is time for the Prime Minister, if he is dinkum in wanting that portfolio to stand for both forestry and conservation, to put an end to this failed ministry—this destructive and inflammatory ministry. It is time for the Prime Minister to carpet Wilson Tuckey and tell him he is sacked.The least he could do is bring him in and tell him he is responsible for the division that is boiling in Western Australia because the majority of people right across the political spectrum are having their aspirations for the future of forest heritage in that state denied them by the political process. What a remarkable situation it is when the Court government itself responds to that public feeling and Wilson Tuckey then fights that government's democratic response. What an extraordinary situation that is.The Prime Minister, of course, is involved right up to his neck in Wilson Tuckey's actions. He appointed this man knowing his record and knowing that he is no fixer. He is a destroyer not only of forests but also of the public wish to reach a win-win situation, which is available. A minister who fails as comprehensively as that deserves to be censured. I do not move this motion lightly. I do not take it frivolously. This is a serious situation in our country which should never have occurred. Certainly the events of last weekend would not have occurred, I believe, if Minister Tuckey had been acting according to the demands of the very pivotal ministry he has on this vexed issue. He deserves censure. I believe he deserves dismissal. The Prime Minister should be the one acting here, not the Senate.I believe the Senate has a very heavy responsibility here. I hear what Senator Ray says. We cannot bring forward motions like this frivolously or because we have a bee in our bonnet or because we happen to take a different point of view. It is a serious matter. We have a seriously failed minister here and I am fearful about him staying in that portfolio. I am fearful that what happened last weekend could get worse. I am fearful that this minister, instead of pouring oil on the troubled waters, is simply going to put another match to the whole situation. It is not good enough. It is time to call him in. It is time at least for this Senate to give him a censure. 16:17:007620Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—This Tasmanian Green sponsored censure motion should win the gold medal for double standards but fail to qualify for its repetition of mindless inaccurate assertions. Indeed, what we heard today from Senator Brown is, I would have thought, a most inflammatory speech. Why doesn't the honourable senator take his own medicine and try to calm the situation down a bit? He is not interested in doing that because he somehow thinks that his political lifeblood is associated with inflaming environmental issues in trying to desperately grasp for votes. Indeed, in recent times, the Greens have seen political demise in his home state of Tasmania. As a result of his former leadership of the Greens, they now have one Green in the Tasmanian parliament and in this parliament there is, of course, now only Senator Brown left.The mover of the motion has in fact gained for himself a reputation for divisiveness, inciting violence and damage to persons and property unparalleled in recent times. The mover of this motion is the one and same person who presided over a demonstration in my and his home state of Tasmania when the regional forest agreement was signed and where $6,000 worth of damage was done to the car in which the Prime Minister was travelling and clothing and uniforms were wrecked. Did Senator Brown come into this chamber rubbing his hands and being concerned about that sort of violence and that sort of inflammatory behaviour? No, because he was at the heart of it. Because he was at the heart of it, it is somehow okay despite the damage to a vehicle and property. Of course, we all recall the shameful behaviour at a demonstration in Tasmania—in which Senator Brown took part—where the Prime Minister's wife was jostled.I would have thought that sort of behaviour would be abhorrent to any decent thinking Australian. Indeed, it is therefore quite duplicitous for somebody with such a record to come into this chamber feigning his concern about somebody inflaming a situation when he himself has been involved in conduct a lot worse—being at the forefront of damage to people's property and being at the forefront when the Prime Minister's wife was jostled. The credibility of the mover of this motion is zilch—nil. There is no credibility whatsoever.Now, with breathtaking audacity, he moves this censure motion, asserting falsely that the popular Minister for Forestry and Conservation inflamed the conflict in Western Australia over the sensible regional forest agreement in that state. Let me stress at the outset that we on this side have complete confidence in our Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey MP. I invite the Democrat and Independent senators to consider the deficient state of the evidence put before this Senate by Senator Brown and to reject the motion. In considering the paucity of the evidence, they might consider the overwhelming evidence on the other side of the debate—as so articulately put in a Department of Conservation and Land Management information bulletin dated 23 August 1999, signed off by Neil Burrows. It says:If, like me, you thought that anti-logging protesters were gentle, passive people who were trying to save the forests, then you're wrong. There is an extreme element in the "green" movement, which is violent, aggressive, and which is lashing out at a society they do not want to be part of. They will use any controversial issue, including the forest debate, to vent their anger at society.Late on Friday afternoon last week, I was working in my office at CALM when a group of about 25 banner waving, chanting protesters burst through a door to my office which opens to the outside of the building, but is not the public access to the building. I asked them to leave my office and tried to block them from moving into the main building. I was overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. Then I was set upon by one of the group who attacked me with fists flailing. I attempted to fend off the blows but was struck on the side of the head and in the throat.Did Wilson Tuckey occasion this? Did he inflame this? Or was it the greens and people like Senator Brown who inflamed this sort of violent behaviour?If the Democrats and Independents in this place want to be in the game of censoring people, they ought to seriously consider—if that is what they believe—the alleged faults on both sides, because it would be disingenuous, indeed dishonest, of the Senate to seek to lay blame on only one side when the people who are undoubtedly the supporters of the green movement behave in such an outrageous way. The bulletin continues:The group shouted abuse and questions at me and howled me down whenever I tried to respond.He went on to say:My grandfather and my great uncles did not put their lives on the line in two world wars for a society that resolves internal issues by mob violence.I invite Independent senators and Democrats senators to consider the credibility of voting on this motion without taking into account that this sort of conflict within the community usually involves two sides. Are we really saying that the honourable minister is responsible for the greens' physical attack on an innocent public servant going about his job? Of course he is not. Who is responsible? Undoubtedly elements within the green movement which orchestrated that event—that violent event where fists were thrown and somebody was punched on the side of the head and in the throat—are responsible.So I say to the Democrats and Independent senators in particular: your own credibility within the community will be enhanced if you have got the courage to say, on this occasion in particular, that you could not vote for this motion on the basis of the paucity of the evidence and the clear physical violence perpetrated by others on the other side of this debate. I suggest to you, and Senator Ray I think hinted at it in relation to previous censure motions in this place: if you keep moving censure motions willy-nilly against a minister on trumped up charges, you will have a complete demeaning of the currency of censure motions in this place; indeed, they will be laughed at.It is for the Democrats and the Independents to consider whether or not they want to be part and parcel of this demeaning process of censure motions within this place or whether they will take a stand. Indeed, I would invite them to even potentially abstain, on the basis that I fully understand that they do draw on a green constituency and, on the odd occasion, they think it may be somehow politically beneficial to them to be seen to vote for a censure of the minister. But I say to them in all seriousness: your long-term prospects will not be served by engaging in this grubby little exercise.I would have thought that, especially amongst Democrats voters, a simple explanation—Senator Brown moved this motion—would be sufficient justification for saying that was the reason you did not vote for it. I notice Senator Greig with a smile on his face, and I am sure that his West Australian colleague, Senator Murray, would appreciate that, because Senator Murray has spoken very eloquently on this stunt.Senator Brown addressed this issue with all the emotion and passion with which he addressed the issue of whether or not we ought to be forced to wear jackets in this chamber. We are sick and tired of hearing the same sort of emotional claptrap from a senator for whom every issue becomes a major issue.In inviting the Democrats and Independents to consider their stance, I suggest to the Australian Labor Party senators—in particular Tasmanian Labor Party senators—that they think very carefully about supporting a motion, sponsored by Senator Brown, which, if you do not read the words of the motion but rather listen to the speech, is a condemnation of the regional forest agreement within his own home state of Tasmania, which the state Labor Party fully supports. Indeed, the Labor Party in Tasmania fully supports our federal legislation.The Labor Party members of this federal parliament who come from Tasmania are really stuck between a rock and a hard place. They know what the people of Tasmania want. The people of Tasmania want the regional forest agreement process because it is good for jobs, it is good for the environment, and it provides some job stability. The regional forest agreement in my home state, which Senator Brown has sought to condemn, put another 400,000 hectares into reserves, which means that 40 per cent of the land mass of Tasmania is in reserves. Tell me any other state—indeed, any other nation in the world—that has a similar figure. There is not one that can be alluded to or referred to, even with Senator Brown still in the chamber.It is the most comprehensive anywhere in the world. Yet Senator Brown and the extreme Greens demand more and more to be locked up. Every time you lock up another hectare it means a loss of jobs. What the federal government has done with the regional forest agreements right around this country is to balance up jobs and conservation on a scientific and reasonable basis to ensure that both can live together in harmony. I wonder sometimes whether or not the Greens believe that human beings are part of nature. Part of the wonderful natural process, for example, is that from time to time beavers chop down trees and dam rivers. When beavers do it, it is wonderful because they are part of nature; if human beings were to do it, it would be rampant environmental disaster. I can just hear Senator Brown saying, `It will be the last living tree on earth that we cut down'—and all the other rhetoric.What are we as humans actually allowed to do in this world in relation to natural resources? If Senator Brown had his way, would he allow one tree to be chopped down, one mine to be opened, one river to be dammed? The answer is no to each of those questions. He has opposed in this place, and previously in the Tasmanian parliament, every single development which might create jobs. Indeed, he talks about woodchipping in my home state of Tasmania. I simply say to Senator Brown and to those who may have listened to his rather inept contribution: why would anybody want to sell timber for woodchips when they can command a higher price by selling it for saw log? It makes no economic sense. Even if they are purely motivated by greed and nothing else, surely greed itself would determine that you would sell that timber for saw log rather than woodchip. Why would you sell a log for woodchips and get, say, $10 instead of $100 for saw logs? There is no explanation and, of course, that is what blows Senator Brown right out of the water. When you consider the mantra that Senator Brown comes out with, it does not bear any analysis whatsoever.The loss of jobs in my home state of Tasmania can be put down to a number of activities by the Greens. The loss of power station developments, the loss of Wesley Vale and the ongoing campaigns to stop good, sound forestry practices are all part and parcel of the Greens' activities which result every day in the loss of jobs. Then when the federal and state governments come together to put an agreement into place for job security, Senator Brown is out there seeking to condemn it. I remember a recent debate in this chamber when Senator Brown—or one of his Greens (WA) colleagues—was seeking to congratulate Holland or the Netherlands for no longer sourcing certain timbers out of the jarrah forests of Western Australia, allegedly because that country was concerned about our environmental record. That was pretty good, emotive stuff and pretty hard to argue against, until you do a bit of research.Where was the Netherlands then sourcing their timber needs from? Ghana, from Africa. I ask you: does anyone in this chamber honestly believe that in a Third World African country such as Ghana they have a forest practices code anything equivalent to what we have in this country? Absolutely not. So the loss of that contract to Western Australia meant the rape of forests in Africa where there is no forest code. Isn't it the Greens who tell us to `think globally, act locally'? What Senator Brown did on that occasion, along with the Greens, was to think locally and say, `Look after my few trees, but let them rape the forests in Africa.'In denying the Wesley Vale pulp mill in my home state of Tasmania, he guaranteed the longevity of a polluting mill in Japan, pouring out worse pollution than any mill that would have been sited at Wesley Vale and ensuring that we would not value add our timber within this country. So he comes to this debate with a record of opposition to absolutely anything and everything that would be of assistance to this country in seeking to reverse—and this is an interesting figure—the annual $2 billion deficit in wood and paper products.Most Australians do not realise that Australia imports $2 billion worth more of timber and paper products than it exports. Where do you think all the extra wood and paper products come from? They come from the South-East Asian forests, from the African forests and from the South American forests—from countries which have absolutely no forest codes in place. Where is the environmental sense in trying to close down our industries when we know full well the source of the much needed timber and paper is going to come from those poorer Third World countries whose environments are being absolutely ravaged and destroyed?Indeed, Senator Brown and the Greens could do something sensible for this country and promote timber and paper products sourced from our forests on the basis that we have world-class forest codes in place, second to none in the world, and that we are concerned about replanting and regenerating our forests. The minister, Wilson Tuckey, knows that as Minister for Forestry and Conservation, if he did not look after the forests—the conservation and the replanting—there would be no forestry industry left within this country. So the minister is very mindful of that.I come back to the motion before us. It is an unsustainable assertion that Mr Tuckey allegedly inflamed the situation over the Western Australian Regional Forest Agree ment. I would be interested to hear the views of others in this debate as to what condemnation we ought to be referring to in relation to the Greens that attacked this one lonely, peace-loving public servant. (Time expired)16:38:007624Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The last few words by Senator Abetz demonstrate just how shallow his argument has been this afternoon in trying to defend the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey. To call him a peace loving public servant would have to be either the height of hypocrisy—N26ABETZSenator Abetz—I was talking about Neil Burrows—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—I understood you were also referring to this so-called wonderful minister. There is no way that the actions of Mr Tuckey, since he assumed the role of minister, can be defended. We are, once again, having an emotional debate in this chamber on the forestry issue. It is a pity we are not devoting the time of the Senate to debating the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . The government has had this major piece of legislation on the table since last year and on the Senate's Notice Paper since the beginning of this year. Minister Tuckey was appointed to have carriage of this primary piece of legislation. He was to get it through this parliament to enable the regional forest agreement process to be completed by its due date—that is, the end of this year. This is the piece of legislation that Minister Tuckey has allowed to sit and languish in the parliament. We are now getting towards the end of August and are yet to consider the bill at the committee stage.This is the bill that this government and this minister said was so important that it had to be debated and passed by the Senate within the first week of parliamentary sittings in February this year. It is an absolute disgrace—and clearly a dereliction of duty by Minister Tuckey—that we are now at the end of August and have yet to even get to the committee stage of considering this important piece of legislation. The reason for this is that Minister Tuckey is incompetent. That is not just the view of the Labor Party and it is not just the view of Senator Brown, whose views on the forestry debate, I have to say, we have not agreed with that often. Certainly, one thing that all of the players—and, increasingly, industry representatives—have agreed is that Mr Tuckey is incompetent.Let us have a look at his record. He was put in charge specifically to look after forestry and conservation issues, which had previously been under the charge of Minister Anderson. He was hand-picked by the Prime Minister and had the primary task of getting the RFA legislation through the parliament and having agreements reached in the nine RFA areas by the end of this year. When he took over the ministry, three RFAs had already been negotiated. Up until two months ago, there were still only three RFAs negotiated. The minister had been in his ministerial position for at least eight months with one task and one task only—to finalise RFAs around this country—and he had not done so. He then announced, in a big fanfare, that an agreement had finally been negotiated in Western Australia. This was something we had been waiting for for months. Within two weeks, the Western Australian government—his own coalition colleagues—walked away from that RFA at a million miles an hour. Mr Tuckey's first RFA in Western Australia since he became minister was thrown out within two weeks. What was Mr Wilson Tuckey's response? He was somewhere in Helsinki at the time. He was quoted as saying on the PM program:I got preliminary advice from other sources and, in fact, I have spent three hours on the phone. I got up at 3 o'clock in the morning in Helsinki to talk to people at the appropriate time here. As I told them, if you proceed with this—I quoted some words from Phantom of the Opera —`There will be war between us', and that is where I stand on it.Those were Wilson Tuckey's words in respect of his attitude to his own coalition colleagues in the Western Australian government over the Western Australian RFA. He said, `There will be war between us!' We all know that Mr Tuckey is prone to colourful language and is prone to bluff and bluster. In fact, he is not just prone to it; he knows no other way of expressing his views. Throughout his tenure as minister, he has constantly used inflammatory language and made speeches in which he has attacked various groups involved in the forestry debate and abused them for holding their particular points of view.It is one thing for Senator Abetz to stand here and try to apportion blame to other groups. I have to say that in this debate there have been inflammatory views expressed time and time again from all sides of the debate, because views are passionately held. We saw no greater evidence of that than back in 1995, with the blockade of this parliament. It was to try to bring about some balance and some commonsense into the debate that the Labor government pursued the development of the national forest policy statement and subsequently the RFA. But it is totally wrong for a minister charged with the responsibility of bringing about rational agreements in this industry to resort to the sort of language that he has used, of declaring war upon state governments.That was not the only time he did it. I attended a conference earlier this year, the `Outlook 99' conference of ABARE here in Canberra. Minister Tuckey was one of the speakers and I was in the audience that day. He stood up and he stated to the audience there—an audience no doubt mainly of industry representatives, so he would have felt that he was at home talking to them—that in his view the 60 per cent figure for the protection of old-growth native forests in the JANIS criteria was never a minimum, but was only a target. What that meant was that he was not committed to the criteria that had been developed for even the protection of the minimum level of old-growth native forests throughout Australia, let alone pursuing those other objectives which are about, over time, moving to a plantation based industry and looking further into reducing our reliance upon old-growth native forests and other native forests to sustain the timber industry. He was not interested in a balanced view. His view was that 60 per cent was just a figure that, whilst it may have been in the national forest policy statement and in the agreed criteria, as far as he was concerned was irrelevant. The clear message was that he was not about to worry too much about protecting all that much native old-growth forest at all.Minister Tuckey is losing support, quite clearly, amongst his own coalition colleagues throughout the country, as evidenced by the reaction from the Western Australian government. He is also losing support on the ground within the timber industry. His continual attacks on the New South Wales government over its record on conservation are the height of hypocrisy. The New South Wales Labor government has done more to protect and develop the national parks and the national forest estate of this country than any other government.Wilson Tuckey's approach has been that, because it is a Labor government, he will play politics: he will deny funding under the programs for structural adjustment and other funding available to people in the timber industry. He has attacked timber industry representatives on the north coast because they dared to sit down and negotiate agreements with the New South Wales Labor government. He condemned the New South Wales government even though his own coalition colleagues in the upper house in New South Wales supported the very legislation put through by the New South Wales Labor government.The problem we have with Mr Tuckey is that he is a loose cannon. He is exploding all over the place, attacking his coalition colleagues in Western Australia, attacking industry representatives, attacking the conservation groups. We obviously expect that he will attack us from time to time. It appears that there is no-one safe from Minister Tuckey's outrage and inflammatory approach to this issue. Of course, it is on the record that he was there the other day, clearly geeing up people in Western Australia to raise the temperature of the debate over there.One has to ask why the Prime Minister persists with this minister. As I said, we are now near the end of August and we have not even got to the start of debating this legislation in the committee stage. It is important legislation. We have something like three or four months left in which to see the remaining four—probably five if you include the Western Australian RFA—still to be finalised and negotiated by the end of this year. On this minister's current track record, it will be four or five years before he ever gets around to doing it, not four or five months. We all know that, if those RFAs are not negotiated and in place by the end of this year, real problems will eventuate. This is because of the fact that the permission for export licences is removed in non-RFA areas at the end of this year. Mr Tuckey's job is to get those RFAs negotiated, and to get them negotiated in keeping with the principles of the national forest policy statement.I understand that we are not able to debate the legislation that is on the Notice Paper—we may get to it some time later today or this week—but I cannot help but remark that we have put up quite a large number of amendments which will improve that legislation. We are hopeful that this Senate will see its way clear to passing those amendments that will improve the legislation, that will see a better outcome with respect to RFAs, that will enable the situations that have developed in Western Australia to be avoided by having some degree of Commonwealth scrutiny over the agreements.But what has Minister Tuckey's announcement been? And, indeed, I put the Prime Minister in this particular category. What has his response been to the possibility that those amendments might be carried by the Senate? He said that he will withdraw the legislation. He will just withdraw it. He will walk away. He will take his chainsaw and go home. Typical Wilson Tuckey approach.UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson)—Order! `Minister Tuckey', thank you.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Minister Tuckey. This is a process that has been carefully constructed and put together in a very hot atmosphere over the past six or seven years. All parties in the political spectrum recognise that this is not an easy situation to resolve, and that there are strongly held views on the pro-conservation side and on the industry side. But Minister Tuckey's approach is that, if he does not get his way, then he will tear up the entire script and walk away. What sort of an attitude is that from a minister charged with trying to bring about stability, resource security and preservation of conservation values into the next millennium in the forest industry and in the forests of this country?It is incompatible with the responsibilities of a minister of the federal government to be going around the country inciting people, declaring war upon state governments, making outrageous allegations about anybody who disagrees with him and tearing up the national forest policy statement. The industry and the future of Australia's forests, if they are left in the hands of this minister, are in dire jeopardy. Whether or not this Senate sees fit to censure the minister is not really the point at the end of the day. The point is this: the Prime Minister should sack Mr Tuckey and he should sack him now.16:55:007626Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak on this motion before us. Senator Forshaw did not inform us whether they were voting for the motion or against it, because he did not talk about the motion—and nor did Senator Brown. It is very noticeable that Senator Brown in his contribution never mentioned Mr Burrows, the CALM officer. He appears to be applying one set of rules on one side of the debate—which is fairly normal—and another set of rules in another circumstance. I find that very regrettable, because the motion says: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.In an earlier contribution, when we were discussing whether or not we would debate this motion, Senator Ray said words to this effect: `I am here to listen to the case'—and it is unfortunate that Senator Ray is not here—`as to whether or not there is a censure to bring against Mr Tuckey with regard to the mitigating of the conflict over the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement.'5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am here listening to you.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I notice you are here and I acknowledge that. There are a number of points I would like to make at the very beginning of this, and I will back this up with information. The first point that I would make is: Mr Tuckey has never condoned acts of violence.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What about his iron bar?UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—We are talking about a motion before the chamber right now. That is what I am talking about now.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—His iron bar is the issue.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Crane has the floor.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Mr Tuckey has never said that violence is the way to resolve the issues as far as the RFA is concerned. He actually warned the authorities that this might happen. On the other hand, we could compare that with the behaviour when there was a protest here some time ago. You will remember that Mr Beazley addressed a number of representatives from the union movement here. What happened at the end of that? They attacked this building. They tore a shop to pieces and they seriously injured a policewoman. I find that extraordinary when you compare the behaviour in that particular instance with what is happening now.If we want to talk about war, let us get the actual facts of the case right. I put on the public record right here now that it was Donna Selby, Messrs Glauser and Robertson's mate from the WA conservation movement, who clearly stated at the signing of the RFA, while being ejected by the police, that the signing meant war in the forests. This was repeated on the TV news that evening on a number of occasions. That is where the original quote in terms of war came from.We have heard from Senator Abetz, with regard to the letter from the CALM manager, on violence by the greenies. That spells out quite clearly what the situation was there and that the law should be applied to everyone equally. I make this particular point in dealing with this motion before us because I recall an event of some years ago. I am sure people on the other side of this chamber, particularly the Labor Party, would remember this. A particular stalwart of theirs called Jack Marks, with others, had fishing shacks between Lancelin and Dongara on the west coast north of Perth. What happened? The authorities sent in the bulldozers and removed those fishing shacks.We have had in much of our forests interference with legal operations for a significant period of time. We have heard from Minister Edwardes in the Western Australian government that she is trying to negotiate her way through this and we have heard from others. We have had direct defiance, with individuals lying in front of bulldozers and mucking around with the process. In my view, they have been breaking the law. Yet there was no mention of that in the contribution from Senator Brown. Nor was there any mention of that in the contribution from Senator Forshaw. If it is good enough for the people who had their fishing shacks on the west coast to be treated in that manner and to have them removed and have to comply with the authorities, then it is good enough for the people who occupy the forests and interfere with the legitimate processes there.I go now to the substance of what I have termed—and these are my words—`the best of the West'. No doubt the West Australian have trawled through every article they could find. I think it would be fair to say that they are no friend of Wilson Tuckey's in this debate—in fact, they have taken a particular line. This is what they list as the best quotes from Mr Tuckey:Federal Forestry Minister Wilson Tuckey has been accused of inflaming tensions in the forest debate. Here are some of his comments:. There could be anarchy in the forests if protesting greenies are not removed. August 19. WA Environment Minister Cheryl Edwardes has a history of turning every portfolio she administers into a disaster and her forest stewardship was on the same track. August 11. Premier Richard Court had started a war with the Federal Government by backing out of the Regional Forest Agreement. It would not end until the agreement was reinstated.. Welcomes police move to claim costs from forest protesters on behalf of logging contractors. June 8I would hardly use any of those quotes I call `the best of the West ' as a reason for a condemnation of Minister Tuckey in the words of this motion, which says:. . . for inflaming rather than mitigating the conflict over Western Australia's Regional Forest Agreement.In fact, they are pretty mild statements on this issue for people who know Minister Tuckey as well as I do.I need to say a little about the conservation agreement that was put together in Western Australia. We heard from Senator Forshaw, who spent a lot of time not dealing with the motion but talking about how many RFAs Mr Tuckey had put together. Whatever the number is, it is absolutely and totally the full sum more than what you people put in place when you were in government.Senator Forshaw interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—When you were in government, you did not put any in place. Your score is zero, zero, zero. And even if you add zero onto that, it stays zero. What I have done before in this place is give credit to you for the national forest policy statement and for bringing on the JANIS criteria, which we on this side of the chamber supported. But you appear now to have walked away from them, because the Western Australian RFA that was signed by Premier Court and Mr Howard is the one that most closely resembles the policy positions in them. If I have time in this debate, I will go to some of those points.I now turn to a further enlightening issue in this motion and whether it is Mr Tuckey who is doing the inflaming. I will give you the answer that was given by Premier Court when he was asked this question. He said:"No I don't, and I want to just put something on record there—and this was after there was full-scale disagreement between Minister Tuckey—the federal government—and the Western Australian government—because we've had one side of this argument in relation to these protests. The timber workers have had incredible control . . . self control, for the last few years, while the sections of the green movement have been using quite dangerous and outrageous tactics. And I think the time's come when the media should spell out, in detail, what some of these green protesters have been doing."And the quote goes on. Once again, the Premier of Western Australia—in this dispute with the federal government about the signing of that agreement—has gone on the public record and put to bed the claims in this motion. I want to appeal to senators to remember that censure motions should not come before this place lightly. If they are going to be debated, we should make the decision on the facts before us—not on somebody's preconceived position on what they would like the RFA to be. I respect your position on RFAs, Senator Brown, and it is quite different from mine. I believe the two can work together. But you are so wrong to move this motion in this form, because it misses the mark and it misses the point.Quite a deal has been said about Mr Burrows. I do not condone either situation. I think it is very sad that both of them have happened. But we have to have a balanced view when we are dealing with these issues. We cannot take the violent aspects of one side and walk away from the other side.We hear a lot about community support, political support and so on, but I want to acknowledge that there is at least one person who has made his position absolutely clear—and I know there are others in Western Australia who have walked right away from Dr Gallop on this matter. I refer to Mark Nevill. This is a newspaper quote regarding Mr Nevill:He accused the ALP leadership of chasing new voters by ignoring its traditional constituency and, in the case of the forests issue, rejecting working people.That is a very important statement, because it reflects on the forest side of Minister Tuckey's responsibilities and the fact that, having had an RFA put in place, these people were entitled to expect some certainty about what happened. Those people are not traditional Liberal Party supporters. In fact, I had the beautiful experience—and they were virtually all AWU and CFMEU members—of being cheered at a rally that I spoke at, because we were standing up for the timber workers, something that the Labor Party in Western Australia seem to have forgotten. If they had stood up for fairness for their workers—in terms of your own national forest policy statement and your JANIS criteria—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I think you've said enough.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—You might think that but I do not. If they had stood by that agreement we would not have the situation we have today. You have to feel for people in towns who have no option, who have had their real estate values totally swept away. Schools will close. All the various things that go in the context of this will occur. I had a lady from down there ring me up a couple of weeks ago. She said to me, `I signed my mortgage the day before the RFA was effectively torn up. What am I going to do? I have a legal document; can I tear that up too?' Of course she cannot tear it up, and these are the sad stories that come out of this.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Go and see Court.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I have seen him, don't worry about that. We will hear an enormous number of very sad and unfortunate stories. If you lose one, two or three children from a school then you lose a teacher. It is not like living in a metropolitan area; the impacts of these things are quite different. I say to Mark Nevill: good on you. I would not be surprised to see a few more go with him. I can tell you right now that you, the Labor Party, have a very disgruntled Julian Grill in Western Australia, as you people well know.There are many things we could go on about in this debate, but it is my very strong view that—and I want to sum this up—there has not been a sustainable case made for this censure motion. In fact, the reverse is the situation. It has not been Minister Tuckey who has been inciting violence in this matter. He took a very opposite position, as I have spelt out very clearly. In terms of the incitement, I find it deplorable that some of our wealthiest people in Perth in Western Australia went down there and incited people to feel very angry about how they have been treated and about how they have had their jobs just swept under the carpet after an agreement was put in place and signed off. Dr Keith Woollard came out and said, `At the end of the day I don't really care about those particular facts.'In summing up, there is no evidence of inflammatory statements in any of the tape recordings of Minister Wilson Tuckey; there is no evidence produced in any of the newspapers—none whatsoever. You can look at the transcript of the Peter Kennedy interview done after the rally at Parliament House where he spoke. You can look at the ABC interview with Eion Cameron. You can work through all these things and no case has been put. Nor has a case been argued. There is criticism of the RFA process as it existed, and we have heard that before. There has been criticism because the RFA legislation before us has not gone through, but that is nothing to do with the resolution before us.I once again appeal to the Democrats and the other people here on this matter: censure motions should not be taken lightly. They should not even be on the Notice Paper unless you can back them up with evidence and facts. If this motion is carried, it will demean the quality, the meaning and the impact of a censure motion, because the people listening and the people out there will know darn well that it has been put here on false pretences and false grounds and that it has no substance which would allow it to be carried with credibility.17:11:007629Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—In speaking to this censure motion I reiterate that this is not to be taken as my first speech. I will be as brief and as to the point as I can. This is not a forum for further debate on the forests issue; it is specifically a debate on the behaviour of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation outlined in the motion before us. The Democrats support this motion because we believe that censure of this minister is richly deserved. Senator Crane asks that the Democrats, in particular, do not take this lightly. I say: we do not. We do not take any decision lightly, particularly given our position in the current chamber.What is at the core of this motion is the behaviour of the minister—not the issues surrounding him—and most particularly how it relates to Western Australia. The regional forest agreement is no doubt a very contentious and highly emotive issue, but it is precisely because of that that the minister must be reasonable, sensitive and diplomatic. If only that were possible from this minister.I recall that, some years ago, after the tragedy of Port Arthur, the federal government moved to introduce gun control. That too was a contentious and difficult issue for some people. In part, it resulted in a rally of many hundreds of people in my home city which, for reasons that I do not understand, degenerated into a forum for homophobia as speaker after speaker claimed that gun control was some kind of strange conspiracy orchestrated by the gay community. People outside and inside this rally held banners and posters which read `Register poofters, not guns'. The guest speaker at that rally was Mr Tuckey, who echoed the sentiments of all those at this meeting and argued for the principle that gun owners should not be registered whereas gay men should be. As a gay man and an advocate for my community, I know personally the chilling effect that has on people and on communities. I have seen first hand how irrational, intolerant statements from public figures affect people in the wider community.If the recent statements by Minister Tuckey had been made by an ordinary citizen, perhaps they would not have mattered so much. If a citizen had expressed the view that the greenies or the loggers were wrong, fine; that is public debate. But when a minister makes the specific claim, `Those people down there don't respect the law; why should anyone else?' referring to the conflict between the loggers and the forest preservationists, then it stands to reason that there is a cause and effect between that intolerant statement and the violence that resulted only days afterwards.This motion is not specifically a referendum as such or a motion specifically asking us to decide whether or not the minister is right or wrong in his arguments. What is in question is his behaviour. The Democrats argue, and I argue, that, whatever Minister Tuckey may think, it is what he says that is most important, and what is needed right now in this emotive and divisive debate is a sense of leadership, tolerance and respect, none of which this minister has shown. For that reason we support the motion.05:15:007630Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I too would like to take the opportunity to speak on this censure motion. We have in Minister Tuckey a person who really likes conflict. He is a person who loves a blue. He has never engaged in consensus politics in his life. He has never supported consensus politics—he probably does not know what consensus politics is. Of course, he is known to his friends and foes alike as `Iron Bar' Tuckey because he has got such a long history of confrontation and antagonism, a long history of inflaming sensitive situations for his own perceived political ends. I do not think anyone is unaware of the history that surrounds Mr Tuckey. He has a deserved reputation in his own electorate, in the Liberal Party and in Australian politics for his approach to the political and parliamentary process.The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, knows Mr Tuckey very well and is well aware of this sort of approach. After all, Mr Tuckey was one of the key conspirators against Mr Howard, one of the Peacock conspirators who openly boasted of his role in bringing down Mr Howard from the Liberal Party leadership and installing Mr Peacock in the behind closed doors Liberal Party coup. There is just no subtlety about Mr Tuckey. There is no delicate touch about Mr Tuckey. There is no deftness in dealing with difficult and sensitive issues from Mr Tuckey. He is the bluntest of political instruments imaginable.On the forest issue he has been a loose cannon. He has been absolutely out of control. I would say, let's face it, he is bonkers; he is absolutely bonkers. When Mr Howard decides to bring Mr Tuckey into this sensitive portfolio, is it a stroke of political genius on Mr Howard's part to bring in Mr Tuckey to one of the most sensitive and important portfolios in the government, that of forestry and conservation? What he has done in this portfolio from day one is to act consistently in bad faith. The regional forest agreements in Victoria and Tasmania, while I do not think anyone from any side of the argument would consider them to be perfect, at least have been implemented with as little pain, including as little pain to the government, as possible. But that was, of course, before we had Mr Tuckey enter the field. That was the tactical genius in bringing Mr Tuckey into this area of ministerial responsibility. That meant that the next RFA in line, the one in Mr Tuckey's own backyard in Western Australia, he immediately turned into a political bushfire, which is still burning out of control thanks to Mr Tuckey. What do you expect, I suppose, if you bring someone like Mr Tuckey into something so delicate and serious as negotiations around regional forest agreements? It is the approach that Mr Tuckey has always adopted—that is, a bull in a china shop.I think many would agree that the inflaming and inciting of timber workers who find themselves in a difficult situation in relation to the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement is simply unconscionable. I think that ought to be placed on record. I have got no idea what was in the Prime Minister's mind when he brought Mr Tuckey back from overseas to fix a bushfire that was really already out of control. It was an argument that the Prime Minister had ignited himself in an exchange of insults with the Premier of Western Australia, the Liberal Party's Mr Richard Court. You would think the Prime Minister must have known what would be the inevitable result of bringing someone like Tuckey back to get him involved. I would say that the responsibility for the mess that we have lies equally with Mr Howard and Mr Tuckey. You cannot leave Mr Howard off the hook in this. I remember reading this in the West Australian newspaper on 29 July 1999:Forestry Minister Wilson Tuckey has vowed to lock up $15 million in Federal money earmarked to help the timber industry in retaliation for the Western Australian Government's about-face on the Regional Forest Agreement.The next day in the same newspaper we read that Mr Howard had moved to tone down Mr Tuckey's fighting words, claiming that Mr Tuckey would not withdraw the money to punish Western Australia, but he left open the possibility of change to the financial arrangement as a result of the new deal. So you had the Prime Minister trying to dig Mr Tuckey out of a hole on that one.We have mentioned in the Senate before the fact that one of the matriarchs of the Liberal Party, Dame Rachel Cleland, bagged the appointment of Wilson Tuckey. She said:Howard appointed Wilson Tuckey with the specific duty of doing the best he can for the industry against all the people who want to keep the forests. "You can't respect a man who does that, and that's Howard, whom I once did respect. I think that he is governing an Australia that no longer exists. He is governing in his own mind an Australia that existed 30 years ago."This was said by Dame Rachel back on 30 April this year, when this was all starting to warm up in Western Australia. You now have the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party in meltdown.I am surprised that Senator Crane wanted to get into the censure motion debate today. After all, he has a preselection to try to protect over there. Perhaps he has no hope of winning it anyway and he thinks he cannot make any more enemies than he already has. I commend Senator Crane for his courage in getting involved in the debate, because he basically said that the whole of the state division of the Liberal Party was completely wrong in their approach to this important issue.But Mr Tuckey is always taking on members of the Liberal Party and his coalition colleagues. He took on John Anderson. He claimed that the RFA issue was heating up because Mr Anderson was too busy in a big portfolio to give forestry his full attention and to stop greens hijacking the debate, so he had added the responsibility to Mr Tuckey. Mr Tuckey bagged Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I read in the Age newspaper:Tuckey says he and Robert Hill are now like two lawyers presenting both sides of the case to John Howard as the judge who decides the final form of the agreements. Sources say that as recently as this month Howard declared in Cabinet that the bottom line in the forests debate was regional jobs.Senator Hill got his office to come out and say that they were `bemused' by the idea that Mr Tuckey was needed to keep the process on track, pointing out that the earlier RFAs in Victoria and Tasmania were relatively uncontroversial, unlike those in Western Australia and New South Wales after Mr Tuckey had been appointed. Then we read that he had clashed heatedly on a couple of occasions with Ms Tehan, the state conservation minister in Victoria, over the accuracy of her department's calculations on the sustainable yield of timber available for public native forests.But they all pale into insignificance compared with the absolute bucketing that Mr Tuckey has deservedly got from his coalition colleagues. You notice that, with the exception of Senator Crane, all the other Liberals from Western Australia are completely silent. That is significant. They are silent on the issue, with the exception of poor old Senator Crane—no-one has told him that Richard Court and the other mob over there have got the numbers. But apart from Senator Crane, no-one in the Western Australian Liberal Party stands ready, willing or able to come out and support Mr Tuckey, because he is indefensible.Senator Crane interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I do not know if you read today's West Australian editorial on this issue. I did. This is obviously a very dominant issue in the political environment in Western Australia. The editorial said:Indeed, reports of balaclava-wearing thugs wielding weapons, of a photographer's arm being seized and an attack on a conservationists' centre with an incendiary device send a shudder down the spines of most Australians.I am sure that is right, although they do not send a shudder through Senator Crane and Mr Tuckey. It said:State Environment Minister Cheryl Edwardes believes Federal Forestry and Conservation Minister Wilson Tuckey's comments have inflamed the situation—and she is partially right.Mr Tuckey is not noted for adopting a conciliatory approach to problems and many people fail to understand why Prime Minister John Howard appointed him to such a sensitive portfolio.That is true—the West Australian newspaper has that one absolutely right. It went on:His continual attacks on Richard Court, Geoff Gallop, Hendy Cowan, Cheryl Edwardes—indeed, anybody who does not see the forestry issue his way—has made him plenty of enemies and done his cause little good.It is not sufficient for Mr Tuckey to deny that he incited violence. Government ministers have a duty—and none more so than during such emotionally charged situations—to choose carefully words for public consumption. We expect them to lead by example and to ameliorate society's trouble spots, not exacerbate them.Mr Tuckey, however, prefers to employ words like anarchy, disaster and war when talking about the problems.That says it all, that is what this is all about and that is why we have a censure motion in the Senate today about this particular minister.Earlier this afternoon, my colleague Senator Ray raised, first of all, the important question about the appropriateness or otherwise of this matter going through without debate. There is no question that you can devalue a censure motion to the extent of it just being carried or defeated on the voices. If you are going to present a censure motion, you have to state your case. Debate is required on a motion of such significance and I think that was accepted by Senator Brown, the mover of the motion.But, of course, the other issue my colleague Senator Ray raised was the question of whether the Senate should get into the business of moving censure motions on members of the executive in the House of Representatives. That is an important issue. Of course, you only have to go back to the record to see what the approach of the coalition itself has been on that important issue. On 25 May 1989, we had Senator Newman move and carry a censure motion on the then Minister for Defence and Senator Richardson. On 5 November 1992, we had Senator Hill move and have carried a rather extraordinary censure motion on the then Prime Minister, Mr Keating. It had the Senate censuring Mr Keating for degrading the office of Prime Minister and the institution of parliament in his contemptuous abuse of the Senate. Well, if we are talking about contemptuous abuse, we ought to have a look at Mr Tuckey and all the targets he identifies. But that was carried, and you had the usual suspects such as Senator Campbell, Senator Crane and others rocking up to vote for that.A censure motion was moved by Senator Campbell on 10 May 1994, censuring Mr McMullan and Mr Walker for the non-production of documents. Again, the speakers in this debate, Senator Abetz, Senator Crane and the now Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Campbell, voted on that and happily agreed to that. And we had a censure motion on the then minister for transport, Mr Brereton, in which, again, the same suspects rolled up and happily supported it. So it has become the practice of the chamber.It is true to say that censure motions in this place have been devalued. There is no doubt about this. We had the extraordinary circumstance earlier when Senator Bolkus, a member of the opposition executive, was censured by this chamber at the same time that the government was arguing that we had so many pressing matters before the chamber in terms of the legislative program. So the government, of course, has devalued the censure motion. But, as far as the opposition are concerned, we do try to approach these questions on their merit and, if a censure motion is worthy of passage, we will vote for it, regardless of whether it has been moved by a non-Labor, non-government, senator or not. I thought we had a very poor case mounted in the censure motion on Senator Hill but the opposition was able to fire up the case, which was not adequately argued by the Australian Democrats on that occasion, and, on balance, we decided to support that censure motion.But the motion before us today is whether the Senate should censure the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, for inflaming rather than mitigating the conflict over Western Australia's regional forest agreements. We will just look at the record here: I am afraid that Mr Tuckey has been confrontationist. He has been inflammatory. He has done everything he can to promote conflict and confrontation on an important issue that requires sensitive handling from any minister who has responsibility for it.We all know the forest debate is one of the most difficult to handle; it is one of the most difficult public policy issues that we have in this country. It was ever thus. But it is never helped by people coming in, like Mr Tuckey has—a loose cannon; someone who is completely out of control in the way he approaches his ministerial responsibility. He just does not have the touch for it. He does not have the capacity. He is either unwilling or unable to put in the effort to this important task that he has responsibility for, in the way it should be put in, to ensure that these difficult issues are handled in the best interests of all Australians.It is not too hard, in many senses, to incite people in this debate, and I will be the first to acknowledge that timber workers particularly are facing difficult challenges and difficult situations. That is true in Western Australia, as it is in some other places, and this constant balance between conservation interests and industry interests is something that governments of all political persuasions have struggled with. On this occasion, Mr Tuckey has failed miserably. His performance has been disgraceful. As I say, I think he is bonkers, and we support the censure motion.17:35:007633Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—in reply—The passage of this debate has convinced me that I have made the right move in bringing forward a motion to censure this failed minister. Not only has the minister failed on the basis of the half of his portfolio which is conservation, and not even members on his side of this chamber moved to defend that contention; he is a failure as minister for conservation. But when it comes to his role in the other half of his portfolio, that of minister for forestry, there has been no good argument brought forward in this chamber to show that he has been able to discharge his duties there with effect. In fact, he has worsened the situation for the industry itself, not least for those who are working in the industry and who feel, very properly, concerned about their jobs. What we have heard is that, since the passage of RFAs—and this has not been contended anywhere in this debate—before, after and during this minister's tenure, the number of jobs lost in the industry has mounted into the hundreds. The minister has been ineffective in being able to stop that haemorrhage, despite the promise that he brought to his portfolio of ensuring the jobs of the people in the industry.So great is that failure that he has before this parliament a bill on regional forest agreements which offers massive compensation to city based woodchip corporations if they are unable, because of federal intervention, to cut forests in the future. But the bill has not one word of support or succour for workers in the industry in terms of guaranteeing their jobs, their livelihoods and their future—nothing at all under this minister.In particular, it is the purport of this argument that, rather than helping the debate, this minister has inflamed it and made it worse for everyone. That purport has been endorsed not just by this side of the parliament through cogent argument, but by the failure of those on the other side to defend the minister. Not one minister on the other side got up to defend Minister Tuckey on this issue. Two members got up to defend him, but they failed in their contribution to this debate to tackle—let alone to defend—the central purport, which is that Mr Tuckey has inflamed and worsened this issue for everybody involved in the debate, in particular in his home state of Western Australia.I cannot help but conclude from that that there is a covert wish by members on the other side that this motion—which they have to, of course, oppose—will in fact succeed, that this will give some leverage and open up the way for the removal of this minister from a ministry which he has so failed that it has led to uproar within his own party in Western Australia. He is at loggerheads as much with the Court government in Western Australia and the ministers involved in this important public debate as he is with conservationists. The majority of people in that state, as in other states, want the forest defended while the governments involved move to the win-win situation of relocating this industry to the plantation base in Australia. This base is ready and waiting, if properly exploited, to provide all the wood needs of this country and, with downstream processing, stop the haemorrhage of jobs—to turn it around so we see an increase in jobs and stability in the job figures in this country. The minister has failed.I add finally that you can gain from the tenor of debate we have just heard that there are concerns on all sides of this parliament that the recent events which involved violence and threat to citizens in this country might not have occurred had the inflammatory contribution of this minister not preceded them. If we do not speak up about his performance, we will ipso facto be responsible for even worse that might occur further down the line. Our job is to not allow that to happen. The removal of this minister would go a long way towards taking the heat out of the debate and returning more light. We cannot remove the minister, but we can censure him. If the Prime Minister, who appointed him some time ago, has good political sense and takes into account the good sense of the people, he will allow this censure motion—if it succeeds, as I believe it will—to help him make the important decision of removing this minister from office. Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.17:46:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.33Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Harradine, B. Harris, L.Heffernan, W. 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.Watson, J. O. W.Denman, K. J. Parer, W. R.Mackay, S. Gibson, B. F.Murphy, S. M. Chapman, H. G. P.Sherry, N. Hill, R. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the resolution relating to the censure of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation (Mr Tuckey), be communicated by message to the House of Representatives for concurrence.Miscellaneous76357635763517:49:007635McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I present additional information received by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee relating to the budget estimates hearings for 1999-2000.Committees76357635763510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators will recall that I advised the Senate last sitting week that I had received two letters from minor party senators nominating to be members of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy. The terms of the resolution of appointment of the committee, as amended by the Senate on 12 August 1999, provide for one senator nominated by Independent or minor party senators.As there are now two nominations for the position on the committee, a ballot will need to be held to determine which one of the two senators who have nominated is to be appointed. Before proceeding to a ballot, the bells will be rung for four minutes.The bells having been rung—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The Senate will now proceed to a ballot. There are two nominations for the one available position. The candidates for the position are Senator Brown and Senator Harris. Ballot papers will be distributed to honourable senators, who are requested to vote for one candidate by striking out the name of the candidate they do not wish to vote for.The ballot papers having been distributed—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, I am not sure of the views of the contenders on competition policy. Would it be appropriate that they make policy speeches to tell us what they think about competition policy before we vote?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Has every senator received a ballot paper? The clerks will now collect the ballot papers, and I invite Senator Calvert and Senator O'Brien to act as scrutineers and count the ballots at the table.The ballot having been taken—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The result of the ballot is as follows: Senator Brown received 40 votes and Senator Harris received 27. Senator Brown is therefore elected as the member of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, nominated by Independent or minor party senators.76357635The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I have received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Troeth)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Brownhill, Calvert, Chapman, Coonan, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Lightfoot, McGauran, Parer, Payne and Watson Community Affairs References Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Coonan, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Parer, Payne, Tierney and Watson Substitute member: Senator Lees to replace Senator Bartlett for the committee's inquiry into how, within the legislated principles of Medicare, hospital services may be improvedEconomics Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Brownhill, Calvert, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Payne, Tchen and TierneyEconomics References Committee— Participating members: Senators Brownhill, Calvert, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Parer, Payne, Tchen and Tierney Substitute member: Senator Sherry to replace Senator Cook for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office from 24 August to 17 September 1999Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Coonan, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Ludwig, Mason, McGauran, Parer and Payne Senator Tierney for the consideration of the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Coonan, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Parer and PayneEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Crane, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Parer, Tchen and WatsonEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Mason, McGauran, Parer, Payne, Tchen and Watson Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Mason, McGauran, Payne, Tchen, Tierney and WatsonFinance and Public Administration References Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Parer, Payne, Tchen and TierneyForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Chapman, Coonan, Crane, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Parer, Tchen, Tierney and WatsonForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee— Participating members: Senators Calvert, Chapman, Coonan, Crane, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Mason, Parer, Payne, Tchen, Tierney and WatsonLegal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Brownhill, Calvert, Chapman, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, McGauran, Parer, Tchen, Tierney and WatsonLegal and Constitutional References Committee— Participating members: Senators Brownhill, Calvert, Chapman, Crane, Eggleston, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, McGauran, Parer, Tchen, Tierney and WatsonRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Participating members: Senators Coonan, Eggleston, Ferguson, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, Parer, Payne, Tchen and TierneyRural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Participating members: Senators Chapman, Coonan, Eggleston, Ferguson, Gibson, Knowles, Lightfoot, Mason, Parer, Payne, Tchen and Tierney.Bills7636A message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Bill 1999 Bills7637r884Billsr8677637Bills received from the House of Representatives.18:07:007637Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—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 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.763718:07:007637Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENT (DISPOSAL OF ASSETS) BILL 1999This Government is committed to the effective delivery of its assistance measures, and part of this involves encouraging more responsible attitudes in the community.As foreshadowed in the 1999 Budget, this bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to introduce improvements to the provisions which prescribe how much a person can dispose of by way of gifts and still remain qualified for assistance from the public purse.Currently, the Social Security Act 1991 allows a person or a couple to give away up to $10,000 per pension year before the gift begins to impact on the level of assistance. This annual $10,000 "free area" is anomalous, in that it is greater than the maximum single pension rate—some $9,400 per annum. The result is that under the current rules an income support recipient can give away more than that person is entitled to receive by way of assistance. Needless to say, this loophole has become a favourite tool for many financial planners who exploit it to increase the income support entitlement of their customers.This bill will close this loophole by reducing the annual "free area" to $5,000, with effect from 1 July 1999. However, provision is made in the bill to ensure that any income support paid on the basis of the existing disposal rules before the Royal Assent to the bill, is protected from being recovered from the income support recipient insofar as these amendments are concerned.At the same time, the bill will take the opportunity to change the basis of the concession from "pension year" to the more widely understood "financial year".I commend the bill to the Senate.AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1999The purpose of the amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (PBR Act) is to: provide temporary relief for applications made ineligible when the PBR Act was introduced; improve public accessibility of information; clarify aspects of prior sale and the payment of fees; and to correct minor transcription errors.The amendments are of a minor technical nature and are aimed at improving the efficient operation of the PBR scheme. They have wide industry support and have been endorsed by the Plant Breeders Rights Advisory Committee.The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 has, as its main purpose, measures that allow cost effective and efficient levy and charge collection techniques. It provides a single act to deal with all levy and charge collection. It allows for uniformity of collection methods and permits a consistency of approach to procedural matters.Many of the amendments clarify and update customs used in rural industries; such as the use of settlement agents and solicitors in arranging property sales incorporating the sale of live-stock.Anomalies have been highlighted as to who is legally the proprietor or operator of a processing establishment, particularly an abattoir. A person who holds a licence under State or Territories' law will, for levy collection purposes, be deemed to be the proprietor. If a licence is not mandatory, the proprietor is to be the person carrying on the business of operating the processing establishment.The powers for authorised persons are being upgraded to bring them into line with those used by inspectors under the Export Control Act 1982. For example, new offences for non-cooperation or obstructing an authorised person in performing those duties are to be included.The remaining amendments merely expand and clarify existing provisions.The purpose of amendments to the Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992 is to change the name of the National Landcare Advisory Committee established under the act to the Australian Landcare Council.In July 1997 the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon John Anderson MP announced that the National Landcare Advisory Committee was to be called the Australian Landcare Council. The amendment has support of those involved with the Australian Landcare Council and the new name has been in use since the announcement of the intended change.The Schedule in the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991, which provides for the establishment of a Grains Industry Council, is to be repealed. The need for a forum to advise the Government on the strategic direction of the grains industry is no longer relevant following privatisation of the Australian Wheat Board and on-going reforms to State grain marketing arrangements.The purpose of the amendments to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 are to change the role, functions and name of the advisory body currently known as the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council.The Rural Adjustment Act 1992 provides for the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) and the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC). As the RAS effectively ceased to operate as at 30 June 1998, being replaced by the Government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, the title and functions of RASAC have been reconsidered.The amendments propose that the new advisory council will be providing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with advice on the following matters:. rural adjustment generally;. regional issues, particularly matters regarding entering into agreements with States relating to rural adjustment;. matters relating to declarations of exceptional circumstances;. training issues, and in particular the Farm Business Improvement Program; and . any other matter that the Minister requests advice or information about.The amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 expand and clarify a number of definitions under the act as well as performing a few housekeeping functions to ensure the provisions of the act are consistent.Key changes are to the definitions of "examinable document" and "wine premises", and to Section 39W, which sets out the records required to be kept. These amendments are designed to ensure that all relevant details of a wine's transformation from grape to retail sale are duly recorded and that all documents and records relevant to the claims made on wine labels can be inspected. These changes do not seek to add extra regulation on wine businesses but simply to reinforce the requirements already set out in the act.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirk) adjourned.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills7638r6467638Debate resumed from 23 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".18:09:007638Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I continue from where I left off yesterday and remind the Senate that this is not to be taken as my first speech. The Democrats will be presenting a set of amendments to the RFA legislation. For the reasons I have outlined, the Australian Democrats would like to see this legislation thrown out of this house and never seen again. As this is very unlikely, our amendments to this legislation are to make the RFA areas consistent with national competition policies, to make the agreements available for public comment, to include sunset clauses, to pick up our obligations under international environment law, to make the legislation subordinate to national environment legislation and export controls, and to oppose unlimited compensation.We will also be presenting a number of amendments to the ALP amendments. I was quite astonished to read the ALP amendments. The ALP knows that, if the logging industry were forced to compete in an economically efficient manner and pay a fair market price for the resources it so greedily devours, it would have to get out of Australian native forests forever. The ALP must choose between the competing demands of old-growth loggers and the environment. It cannot have it both ways. Either you calculate the value of the forest in cubic tonnes or you look at its inherent value as a living treasure.On close reading, the ALP's amendments barely acknowledge the concept of forest protection. We have a Wood and Paper Industry Council proposal because the ALP believes that forests are a free resource put there solely to feed woodchip mills. The native forest logging industry is one which should be wound down as soon as possible. Why the ALP wants to wrap the native forest woodchipping industry in cotton wool, protecting it from the real world, is beyond me. The economic and environmental arguments for not proceeding with the RFAs are irrefutable. The government and the ALP claim regularly that their policies are not about using industry policy to pick winners or, in this case, losers. But they are contradicting this mantra by continuing to subsidise an industry in decline, protecting it from real market forces and genuine competition.We look forward to the support of all parties for our initiatives towards recognising the importance of the environment in the RFA legislation. It is unfortunate, but this legislation will not solve the forest issue. It will not make it simply go away, as the ALP and the coalition would like. They do not like the unrest in their parties nor the unedifying brawls on the front of newspapers. They do not like caucus and party room unrest nor fights between unions and business, and state and federal counterparts. They see forests as a bleeding sore that can simply be fixed with a bandaid solution that will last for 20 years.The south-west of Western Australia is becoming the front line of the forest war. The first victim in this battle has been constructive dialogue, and now lives are being put at risk. The government must accept responsibility for this and for negotiating a poor and unfair agreement that is diametrically opposed to community wishes to preserve old-growth forest and halt the logging of native forests. The community is wise to this issue and will not give up. The sector will decline, and old-growth habitat will disappear. The community will get angrier, and politicians will be held to account. Come election time, we will see undignified seat scrambling and the odd new national park created. This will be followed by more outrage from the unions, and the cycle will repeat itself. The RFA will come back to parliament over and over again. This is why it is important that the major parties stop pretending it will go away and actually move to start protecting our remaining old-growth forests now.18:13:007639Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I speak near the end of this debate and, in doing so, will address some issues that are of importance not just to the parliament but also to the broader public. As we come to the end of this debate, we need to take into account the importance of this issue across the nation. This is one of the most controversial, heated and divisive issues that Australia has confronted over the last decade. It is a debate which, with few exceptions, traverses the nation; it is a debate that has continued for years; it is a debate that divides not only communities or states but also families. One only has to look at the situation in Western Australia to acknowledge that the impact of this debate has divided people in their communities and in their families. Senator Greig was right in saying that it is a debate which shows no signs of abating. I am one of those who believe that this debate will continue beyond the next federal election. It is a debate that will influence the outcome of many seats at the next federal election. It is a debate that is driven in such a way that it will not abate just because we pass this legislation.The process itself, if this legislation is passed, will be under constant scrutiny by the public, and the process itself will have to be a lot better than the one in Western Australia before the public accepts it. If there is one thing that this parliament should take into account in respect of Western Australia, it is that where governments go through token processes, where governments pay lip-service to concerns for protection of old-growth forests and habitats, then, though the process may be quick and dirty, the outcome will not satisfy the public, and the public have a way of ensuring that their voice is taken into account. What I am saying is that, if this legislation does pass the parliament, then, no matter in what form it passes the parliament, governments in Australia will be held by the public to their obligations, and their obligations basically are to take into account real and meaningful processes, not tokenistic and lip-service processes as we have seen in Western Australia.There is genuine concern for the preservation of old-growth forests and habitats, and there should be. There is genuine concern about the preservation of jobs. But what we have to take into account as a national parliament is that we should not be driven by one side of the debate or the other; we should take the opportunity to take a holistic approach to this issue. If we were to do that, I think we would very quickly come to the conclusion, as loggers are finding across the country, that there is no long-term security—no medium-term security for many of them—in relying on the logging of old-growth forests and the destruction of old-growth habitats.The best way to have a sustainable industry is to extend and expand the plantation timber resource. As I say, when you look at the experience over the past five or six years, despite promises, despite commitments, those who have relied on the viability of an industry dependent on old-growth forests quite often find themselves out of employment. It is an unfortunate part of the change that is going on in their communities, but also it is a reflection of the short-sightedness of those who are driven by an obsession to log old-growth forests and not to take a longer-term or medium-term view of not just plantation forests but also alternative industries and regional development plans for some of the areas we are talking about.This debate has gone off the rails in the last few months, not just because of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Wilson Tuckey, but also because of a bodgie process in Western Australia. What we have had is an irrational debate over recent weeks rather than a rational debate. We have had abuse from a federal minister rather than a democratic acknowledgment of people's rights to have different points of view. We have a process which, in a sense, is quite indefensible—but one which the federal minister for resources, Wilson Tuckey, tries to defend. As I say, this is an issue that will keep coming back to this Senate—if not by way of legislation, then by way of controversy, by way of public concern, by way of public opposition, as Richard Court found in WA.We are also coming to this debate in a somewhat new legal environment. We are coming into this debate after the passage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill. That has changed the ground rules to some extent—to a big extent. We have heard Democrat speaker after Democrat speaker talk about how their amendments are intended to overcome the effects of the EPBC legislation. Let us put it on the record that that legislation passed this Senate—and could only have passed this Senate—with the support of the Australian Democrats. There were not the numbers on the floor of the chamber for that legislation to have passed before 1 July. It was the Democrats who signed the death warrant for so much of the old-growth timber that they are now expressing concern about.The biodiversity bill has had an impact. It has had a negative impact on the protection of old-growth forests. It is a bit rich for the Australian Democrats to come in here, having passed the bill, having sold out on some of their long expressed concerns, and attempt once again to play catch up—to play catch up in terms of wanting to protect the old-growth forest but also to play catch up in political terms. What Senator Brown has been saying about them and what I have been saying about them in respect of their approach to the EPBC legislation is right. They entered into a quick and dirty deal which did not sufficiently protect the environment, and this is one area where the environment was not protected.If you look at advice that is available to the parliament from the Parliamentary Library, you will find, in a paper that we had prepared by the library on 26 July, that the views are pretty clear. The paper says:Irrespective of the provisions of individual RFAs and irrespective of the RFA Bill, once the EPBC Act comes into force, the Commonwealth's scope for involvement in forestry issues will be reduced, in particular—not solely and exclusively but in particular—where an RFA is in place. Division 4 of Part 4 of the Act contains wide exemptions for forestry operations permitted by regional forest agreements and for regions subject to the process of developing and negotiating a regional forest agreement.That is the clear legal position. Basically, in passing that legislation, in going through a process of consultation with a government—private, secret negotiation with Senator Hill—what the Democrats did not do was protect what they are now seeking to protect. We remember they came into this place and said, `Look, we have got this amendment and we agreed with the government that this would be fought separately from the deal we have had on the legislation,' knowing full well that that amendment could not have been passed in this place in that debate because the numbers were not there to pass it. They lost their opportunity to protect what they now seek to protect—to protect what they then in a subsequent amendment sought to protect in this debate. The consequence of allowing that bill through, of missing that opportunity, is what I have just read out from the library advice. The library advice also says:Section 524(3) of the EPBC Act will have the effect that the decision to grant a woodchip export licence will not trigger the Act's operation. The subsection provides that a decision by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency to grant a governmental authorisation under certain Acts, including the Export Control Act 1982 , is not an action for the purposes of triggering the EPBC Act.The advice goes on to say:Under the EPBC Act, it is not possible to invoke world heritage powers to protect RFA areas from forestry operations where the areas possess world heritage values (and therefore might otherwise trigger the Act's operation) but where the property is not actually listed as World Heritage.The advice, extensive as it is, also says:The limited number of `national environmental significance' triggers in the EPBC, the wide RFA exemption within that Act, coupled with the removal of the Export Control Act as a trigger, as well as the effect of regulations made under the Export Control Act mean that, irrespective of the provisions of individual RFAs, the Commonwealth's scope for involvement in forestry issues is likely to be reduced, especially in RFA regions.Not in RFA agreements but in RFA regions. That is the horse they let bolt when we discussed the EPBC legislation a little while ago. Now they are coming into this place again with an amendment, which they are challenging all of us to support, to basically fix up what they mucked up.One would have a degree of sympathy with the Democrats, in that they were enormously naive when they last negotiated with the government. But it is a bit rich to muck something up and then come here and say, `Oh well, you'll prove your credentials, whether you support our amendment or not.' The fact is that the amendment that they are to move in this debate to exclude the operation of division 4 of part 4 of the EPBC Act only half undoes what they did with the EPBC legislation. Let us be under no delusion about this. They will not fix up what they rendered asunder with their vote and their negotiations with the government on the previous legislation. They will come in here and say, `This is important. We have got to remove division 4 of part 4 of the EPBC legislation and then everything will be okay in terms of the forests.'But the advice that I have just received from the library runs contrary to that. That advice, dated 24 August, says:Effect of repeal of Division 4 of Part 4 of the EPBC ActIf Division 4 of Part 4 of the EPBC Act is repealed effective before July 1999 when the EPBC Act and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1999 (ERCP Act) commence, the effect of this will be to expand the Commonwealth's potential scope for involvement in the approval of forestry operations as compared to the scope for involvement under the EPBC Act as it currently stands. Nevertheless, its scope for involvement will remain considerably less than under the current regime where the granting of woodchip export licences under the Export Control Act 1982 can trigger Commonwealth involvement. This is due to section 524(3) of the EPBC Act, under which government authorisation under the Export Control Act 1982 is not an action for the purposes of triggering the EPBC Act. This substantially lessens the Commonwealth's statutory powers in relation to forestry operations, regardless of the Democrat amendments.This is clear legal advice from the parliamentary Information and Research Service that their amendments proposed now will not return the situation to what it was before the EPBC legislation that they entered into and passed with the government in the last session of parliament. They cannot undo what they did then. That just proves the point that we have been making all along. That was a hasty, ill-conceived, secret deal, the victim of which was protection of the environment. The advice goes on to say:The repealing of Division 4 of Part 4 would however ensure that other triggers in the EPBC Act could be invoked if relevant. It would also leave in question the status of forestry operations in regions in which an RFA is currently being negotiated (see section 40 of EPBC Act). This would add to the doubt surrounding the RFA process (as certain provisions of RFAs, as mentioned above, are of questionable status).So there is certainty that you will not go as far as where we were before the EPBC legislation. There is also some uncertainty as to other areas that the Democrats are trying to repeal. So with certainty you can say that they mucked up badly last time. With certainty you can say that, no matter what their amendments do this time, you will not go back to the situation that prevailed before the EPBC legislation.That is only in respect to division 4 of part 4 of the act. There are other provisions in that legislation which by amendment this time the Democrats are not seeking to return to the prior situation. That EPBC legislation, as we said at the time, had loophole after loophole, escape clause after escape clause, trigger after trigger to ensure that the Commonwealth could absolve itself of responsibility in national environmental protection—and not just national but regional as well. This advice goes on to say:Alternative means of exempting RFA forestry operations under the EPBC Act—and it lists ministerial discretion, ministerial exemption, ministerial declarations and bilateral agreements. All these areas would be available to the federal government under this legislation, regardless of whatever happens to this legislation even if the Democrat amendments are passed. All these areas would be available for the federal minister to ensure that the levels of protection that were available pre-EPBC legislation will not prevail into the future.The Democrats are not seeking to amend those parts. They have signed up to them in the deal with the government. They signed up to provisions about which, for instance in respect of bilateral agreements, the advice says:The Commonwealth could enter into bilateral agreements that delegated the approval powers in relation to forestry operations to the State with which it made the relevant RFA agreement (see section 29).That is a power which will stay with the Commonwealth minister regardless of what happens, because the Democrats are not moving amendments to repeal that. And they are not moving amendments to repeal that because they actually signed up to that. That was part of their integral arrangement with the government. In respect of ministerial declarations, the advice says:In theory, the Environment Minister could make a declaration under section 33 that forestry operations in RFA regions did not require approval.Another escape clause. In respect of ministerial exemption, the advice says:The Environment Minister could exercise his/her power under section 158 of the Act to provide an exemption for a controlled action if of the view that the action is in the national interest. Such an exemption cannot be reviewed by Parliament.In respect of ministerial decision, the advice says:Under section 75 of the Act, the Environment Minister could decide that a particular forestry operation was not a controlled action. That is a ministerial decision. The advice says:If Division 4 of Part 4 were to be repealed, there would be various mechanisms available for exempting regional forest agreement forestry operations from the EPBC Act even if they had a significant impact on a matter or matters of national environmental significance listed in Part 3 of the Act. These possibilities, combined with the removal of the Export Control Act as a trigger, mean that Commonwealth involvement in forestry issues could be minimised regardless of the existence or repeal of Division 4 of Part 4 of the EPBC.That is where we are in respect of this legislation now. I say to the Democrats that the two bits of legal advice from the library make it very clear that they did not know what they were doing then or else they are trying to mislead us now. The end result of their amendments getting up now would still be, as the advice says, not only a diminution of Commonwealth responsibility but enormous opportunities for the Commonwealth to even absolve itself of those opportunities and that responsibility as well. So your amendments are catch-up in terms of politics but not catch-up in terms of law. They fail in that respect.As I said earlier, we are coming to the end of this part of the process. Our amendments are obviously geared towards trying to ensure continued public scrutiny of the process. The government has claimed and screamed loudly that to allow the parliament to have some ongoing interest in this area will lead to uncertainty and to some sort of anarchy in terms of these agreements, but let us remember what we are doing. Through this legislation we are giving industry, in particular, a 20-year period of certainty and security. If we apply the letter of the law, as the WA government is doing, we do so in a way that does not guarantee sufficient scrutiny at the start of, nor sufficient scrutiny through, the process. The public of Western Australia have told their government that they are not prepared to sit idly by and allow the government to enter into an arrangement with industry, the direct consequence of which has been the destruction of much important and cherished old-growth forest and timber.So what we are trying to do on the Labor Party side is to have a capacity for ongoing scrutiny and to move a number of amendments to try to tie this legislation to the objectives that the previous government set in developing its regional forest agreements legislation. We had as our agreed principles the objective of ensuring sustainability of forests and forest practices. In moving those amendments we make it very clear again that, though the government says to Labor, `This is your bill,' this is the name of our bill but this is not our bill. This is a bill that has changed enormously since 1992, Senator Crane—who is sitting there with his ears pricked at that. This is a bill that may have the same title as the 1992 legislation but differs so often in terms of objectives, demands and processes from the 1992 legislation. It is for that reason that we deem it appropriate to move amendments, in a number of areas that have already been detailed by Senator Forshaw, to ensure not just a process but a defensible one. In closing, I say again that we should take particular heed of the voice of Western Australians who have had an opportunity to scrutinise their processes in that state. Unless this parliament puts up a process that is defensible, the debate will continue and the debate will be as divisive as it has been.18:32:007643Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—In speaking to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 before us, I would like to deal with some of the issues that were raised in the Senate legislation committee inquiry into this legislation. In that inquiry, in the two days of hearings we had in Melbourne, we probably heard every conceivable point of view in the forest debate that it was possible to put. Some of it was very constructive, and we had the extremes from both sides of the debate putting their views. While there were two dissenting reports—one from the Labor Party representatives on that committee and one from the Democrats—I think the fundamental principles we set down in the majority report really set the scene to move ahead on this. The unfortunate thing is that we did not get to the legislation earlier. I heard some comments earlier about why we had not brought on this legislation. But the filibustering that went on in this place on the tax debate back in May and June—and before that—meant that there were time constraints caused by the wasting of time, and the government was unable to get to a lot of legislation that it would like to have got to.We did make a number of recommendations on this legislation. The first recommendation was that the legislation be passed unamended by the Senate. There is one particular issue that I wish to deal with on the amendments that have been proposed by the Labor Party, and that is the parliamentary disallowance of the agreements. I think we need to look at this from both a pragmatic and a constitutional point of view. In terms of the management of the land and the forests, there is no question that the constitutional rights of the states must stand up. If this amendment is passed, I have no doubt that, whichever state is overridden by this Senate, regardless of who is in government, the issue will very quickly go before the High Court and there will be a long drawn-out battle, with very clear right on the side of the states. It is totally impractical to proceed down that line and it would defeat the purpose of the national forest policy statement.I was rather surprised to hear from Senator Bolkus—and I presume he was referring to the national forest policy statement—that it had changed dramatically since 1992. I am not aware of any changes whatsoever that have occurred. In fact, the principles of the national forest policy statement, which I will come to if I have time, stand as strongly today as they stood at the time they were put together. I point out that there would be constitutional problems if this Senate were given the power to override agreements that were signed by the states. There are other areas where the Senate can have that power, because the responsibility has been put in the hands of the Commonwealth, but in this instance it is not. So that amendment is flawed before it even gets off the ground. People who vote on this legislation should take careful note of that fact.Another issue that was raised right across the board—there was no particular champion of the cause—was the consistent criticism that people did not know what was in RFAs; there was not enough public information. The Senate committee, therefore, recommended that, for their first five years, an annual report on the RFAs be tabled in the parliament, which will allow total scrutiny of any upgrading changes that are made during that time. One of the furphies the committee was able to put to bed was that changes cannot be made to an RFA. Albeit difficult in some instances, changes can be made, according to the circumstances.The committee recommends the government establish the wood and paper industry council. This came directly from the submission of the union representatives. Minister Tuckey has agreed that a wood and paper industry council should be established, but we on this side of the chamber do not agree that it is necessary to spell out all the fine detail of the membership and structure of that committee. We would sooner have a flexible approach to this and a committee which is structured to deal with the principles required in this area but which can have the flexibility to change membership and direction and to do things that are in the best interests of the timber industry. The amendments put before us ignore the fact that rigidly setting something in concrete in legislation such as this effectively removes any flexibility that such an industry council may have. It is not necessary for it to be put into legislation.The next issue I wish to raise, which relates partly to something I have already spoken about, is the access to RFAs. In this particular case we are dealing with the actual RFA itself, not the ongoing review on a yearly basis over five years, but we believe that, once it is signed by the Prime Minister and the respective state premier or their nominee, the RFA should be tabled in the Commonwealth parliament. That is to allow for the total transparency that the majority on the committee believes is necessary to get rid of some of the claims made about RFAs which are not true. While it is a fact that, even under the current situation, people can get access to it, we believe that we should make that totally visible. I make that point.One of the most important resolutions relates to employment, the status of plantation development, the status of the forests in various places and the changes that may occur. For example, major fires or floods occur from time to time that do alter balances. The Australian Bureau of Statistics should run annual questionnaires to establish over a period of time what is actually occurring in the forests, whether they be on private land or on public land. During the hearings we heard from one source—I will not mention any names—that should have been reliable in telling us the situation with regard to plantation forests, that said Australia could switch very easily to the utilisation of plantation forests and rely much less on the natural forest. Equally we heard from other witnesses, who are equally qualified, that it would be some years—probably 15 to 20 years—before the plantations could fill the gap that would exist if you were to reduce on a large scale the access to the natural or regrowth forests.We even heard from other scientists and individuals, and I have also had private correspondence on this, that there would always be a demand or a necessity for the utilisation of a percentage of natural forests because of the requirements from the timber industry of Australians as a people. It should be noted that—and not many people in this debate acknowledge this—on average every man, woman and child in Australia uses three tonnes of forest products every year. That has to come from somewhere, or you are going to have to change your habits very dramatically. There are many personal items as well as paper and furniture that are produced from the forest through that particular process.I make this point: against the fact that we import close to $2 billion worth of timber products into this country per year, we need to share our responsibilities as a nation in terms of what we extract and harvest from our forests. It is a renewable resource, and I doubt whether anybody, except the true scientists, when they go into a forest that has been regrowing for 40, 50 or 100 years, is able to tell the difference, anyhow. At the end of the day, a tree is a living thing, as we are, and it has a life span to maturity then it starts to go backwards for a period of time and then it dies. Much of the emotion in the debate is ill-founded and not based on fact.Another point I want to make here is that it has been claimed and argued that harvesting the forests in Western Australia has contributed to the salinity problems which exist in that state. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not one skerrick of evidence anywhere that, where forest harvesting occurs, there has been any land go saline or any increase in the level of salinity in the water in streams, rivers or soaks. In fact, the dead opposite occurs when there is a major forest operation in an area. Young growing trees utilise significantly more water than medium- and old-growth trees and they reduce the watertable which in turn reduces the salinity take-up. Nonetheless, when you get into the heavy rainfall areas where the major forestry areas are, it is not a problem and there is no evidence indicating one skerrick of salinity.The other point that I would make comes to the argument about the animals, birds et cetera. There is not one piece of evidence of any loss of any animals in the Western Australian forests from forest harvesting. The areas where there is a problem are areas where there has been clearing and the natural habitat has been destroyed in one way or another because it has not been fenced out. I can speak from experience on this issue in relation to the blue-green parrot, which is supposedly living only in Fitzgerald Park. There was a certain amount of land in Fitzgerald Park which was pulled back from being opened up for agriculture because of the concern about this particular parrot. We now find that we have blue-green parrots living in the tree lines which are planted across the properties, our property included. So, if you fence out the particular habitats, the protection of our flora and fauna can be accommodated and can be combined with a proper commercial farming operation. Then you find the benefits that flow to the economics of the farm operation because of the protection, the lowering of salinity and a whole range of things.There are a lot of myths surrounding this particular debate, but I will return to the survey by the Bureau of Statistics which I was talking about. We asked to have included in it questions on assessment of natural forest areas; plantation forest areas, public and private; the tourism industry; the service industries; and other industries operating within each RFA region. Nobody was able to give us anything like an accurate clue, for example, on how many jobs were generated from tourism as against the jobs generated from forestry operations. Worse than that, they could not give us a clue on the interlinkage between the jobs which were created there. We thought that was information which was very important and which we should in fact collect.I want to make a couple of quick observations in the time I have left in regard to the national forest policy statement and touch on the things that are included there and are required to be dealt with when developing an RFA. Of course, the fundamental purpose of this legislation is to give resource security to the people who work in forest industries. We often hear the woodchip companies cited in the capital cities, but there is a lot more to the timber industry than that. There are the contractors who own the trucks, the tractors and the various equipment that moves them around. It impacts on them and on all the employees right through the process if the Commonwealth reneges on its responsibilities.We have the issues of conservation, wood products 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. I cannot emphasise the last issue too much. Whenever we walk away from our responsibilities in supplying some of that three tonnes I talked about, it means that we send a ship to one of the countries up north and, because they do not have the rules and disciplines that we have in this country, we become part of the process of raping the forests of Indonesia, Malaysia and our other northern neighbours. Of course, they have enormous economic pressures on them at their particular stage of development.In winding up my remarks, I say that what this legislation will do is give that resource security that is needed. Once that 20-year RFA is put in place, it will remove the double jeopardy from having combined Commonwealth and state acts operating together, and that is very important. People should have to operate under only one set of laws, not two sets of laws. I believe that if these other issues I have raised are picked up in the proper manner and if these amendments are not proceeded with, because they will put us back into the double jeopardy situation in many areas, then this legislation will make a major contribution to the development of the timber industry in this country, and not only will we see the use of the existing forests in an ecologically sustainable way but also we will see a further development of plantations and the contribution they can make to reducing that enormous timber deficit that we have at this time.Debate interrupted.Senate adjourned at 6.51 p.m.Documents76467646The following government documents were tabled:Australian Communications Authority—Telecommunications Interception Review—Review of the longer term cost-effectiveness of telecommunications interception arrangements under section 332R of the Telecommunications Act1997 , June 1999.Judge Advocate General—Report for 1998.7646The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Amendment of section 82, dated 12 August 1999.Parliamentary Entitlements Act—Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations—Advice of decisions under paragraph 18(a).Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations Nos 11 and 12 of 1999.Answers to Questions on Notice7647The following answers to questions were circulated:7647(Question No. 996)9967647O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were these consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.7647Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Whilst not employed as a consultant, Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC is currently engaged by the Department as a contractor to provide the following services:Preparation and the development of a Hypotheticals program with input to the video production aspects, including the development of a storyline consistent with the key messages and objectives of the Departmental Workplace Ethics Awareness Program. Facilitation of the Hypotheticals program.Post Production work including assistance with the review and editing of the transcript and input to the review and editing of the video.(a) The contract was signed on 24 December 1998.(b) The work has not been completed. The preparation and facilitation of the Hypotheticals program has been completed and the editing is currently being undertaken.(a) See response to Question 1(a)(b) The fee payable is £10,000. In addition, the Department agreed to pay travel costs between Sydney and Canberra commensurate with the APS (SES) travel allowance.(2) Geoffrey Robertson holds the copyright on the `Hypothetical' title and format. Given the copyright issue, the experience and the reputation of Mr Robertson and the relatively low cost, it was not considered appropriate or necessary to tender this element of work.(3) The invoice is expected to reflect the arrangements specified in the contract.(4) Whilst no other consultants were engaged, the other contract associated with the work undertaken by Geoffrey Robertson was awarded to:(a) Bearcage Media Services.(b) The contract was signed on 19 March 1999.(c) The work has not been completed. The editing and production to produce the final video is currently being undertaken.(d) Provide the following services:Provide a director, producer and research assistant for the staging and production of the Hypotheticals program.Arrange for a venue for the staging of the Hypotheticals program.Construct a set for a panel of 12-16 people.Provide all camera, lighting and sound equipment and personnel for filming.Produce a transcript.Carry out editing and audio mixing.Produce copies of the final video (including captioned master for hearing impaired staff).(e) The fee payable is $34,990.05 with a small additional contingency amount negotiable. (5) It is anticipated that there will be a small variation of cost for services from Bearcage Media Services.(a) The anticipated variation is consistent with the contingency amount specified in the contract.(b) The cause of the variation is mainly associated with an increase in the size of the panel.(6) The engagement of Bearcage Media Services was subject to a tender process.7648(Question No. 998)9987648O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1999:Has Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC been engaged as a consultant by the Minister or the department since March 1996; if so:(1) (a) What was the nature of the work Mr Robertson undertook; (b) when was he engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work; and (e) what was the cost of the consultancy.(2) Was the contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.(3) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price; if so: (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(4) Have other consultants been engaged to undertake work associated with the Robertson consultancy; if so: (a) who were those consultants; (b) when were they engaged; (c) when was the work completed; (d) what was the nature of the work undertaken by them; and (e) what was the cost of each consultancy.(5) Did the final cost vary from the contracted price for any of the above consultancies; if so (a) what was the magnitude of the cost variation; and (b) what was the cause of the variation.(6) Was each contract the subject of a tender process; if not, why not.7648Ellison, 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:As far as I am aware, Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC, has not been engaged as a consultant for the Minister or the Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (nor the Education Training and Youth Affairs component of its predecessor, the former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs) for the period of 1 March 1996 to 20 May 1999. Following the machinery of Government changes in October 1998, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will provide a separate response covering the employment related functions for the period March 1996 to 20 May 1999.7648(Question No. 1105)11057648O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on the 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.7648Alston, 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:Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Program (TAP) and the Indigenous Employment Policy(1) The Department administers the Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Program—TAP until 30 June 1999 and the Indigenous Employment Program from 1 July 1999.(2) The TAP Program includes two elements, Employment Strategies and Direct Assistance. The methods used to make payments under the program do not enable the level of funding made to specific federal electorates to be identified without an individual assessment of each payment. Such an assessment would be resource intensive. However, details of the total funding under TAP for the State of Tasmania is available and is provided below:FY 1997-1998 Employment Strategies—$0.632 millionDirect Assistance $1.075 millionFY 1998-1999With the introduction of the Job Network in May 1998 funding previously provided by the Direct Assistance elements of TAP were transferred to the Job Network and the Employment Strategies element of TAP retained. Transitional funding arrangements were put in place for any continuing placements under the Direct Assistance elements of TAP after May 1998 and the amounts paid have been included:July 1998 to September 1998 Employment Strategies $0.061 millionDirect Assistance $0.463 millionOctober 1998 to June 1999 Employment Strategies $0.423 millionDirect Assistance $0.114 million(3) The Indigenous Employment Program replaces TAP from 1 July 1999. Funding will not be directly apportioned to individual States or Territories and client demand and the proportion of indigenous people in Tasmania will determine the level of funding. However, with the introduction of the Indigenous Employment Program, the level of assistance available to indigenous job seekers has increased and the level of assistance to indigenous Australians under this program in the electorate of Bass can be expected to increase proportionally.Work for the Dole(1) The Department administers the Work for the Dole program. The objectives of the program are to develop work habits in young unemployed people, involve the local community in quality projects that provide work experience and support unemployed people at the end of the projects, and provide communities with quality projects that are of value to the community. The Government provides funding to not-for-profit organisations for quality projects that will provide benefits to the local community.(2) Funding of $19,800 and $206,561 was provided for Work for the Dole projects in the electorate of Bass for 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years respectively.(3) Funding of $596,050 has been allocated for Work for the Dole projects in the electorate of Bass for the 1999-2000 financial year.Job Network Services(1) The following Job Network Services are provided in the electorate of Bass:Job Matching; Job Search Training; Intensive Assistance; The New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS); and New Apprenticeship Centres.(2) Under Job Network, the Commonwealth contracts around 300 providers nationally, and eight providers who have sites in Bass, to deliver services for unemployed people. The arrangements between the Commonwealth and individual providers are commercial-in-confidence and, therefore, details of payment to Job Network members in Bass are not available. Payments to individual Job Network members are based on outcomes achieved. Grants are not provided for assistance to individuals under Job Network.(3) Details of funding at electorate level for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years is not available as it is commercial-in-confidence as it may identify individual providers.Prior to the commencement of Job Network on 1 May 1998, a number of Labour Market Programs were provided in the electorate of Bass. Funding for these programs in 1997-98 and 1998-99 was as shown in the following table.PROGRAM1997—981998—99Employment Incentives$1,135,362$121,818Job seeker Preparation and Support$454,623$43Training for Employment$1,318,641$248Enterprise and Adjustment$416,554$23,227Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders$90,862$59,128Notes: Employment Incentives' include Jobstart, Special Employer Support, New Work Opportunity `Job seeker Preparation and Support' includes Job Clubs. `Training for Employment' includes Job Train and SkillShare. SkillShare payments includes $358,634 paid in 1996-97 against 1997-98 contracts. `Enterprise and Adjustment' includes Regional Assistance Program and the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme.(3) Details of funding provided to programs at electorate level is not available as funds are not appropriated at electorate level.Regional Assistance Program(1) Assistance has been provided through the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) and through funding for the Tasmanian Employment Advisory Council, which is the Area Consultative Committee in Tasmania.(2) $586,000 and $334,000 in funding was provided in 1997-98 and 1998-99 respectively. However, these amounts include assistance provided to the ACC, which benefits the whole of Tasmania, and funding for some projects which apply to Bass as well as other federal Tasmanian electorates.(3) Funding for 1999-2000 has not been finalised. However it is expected that allocation levels will be similar to those of previous years.Office of the Employment Advocate(1) The Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) does not administer grants. People living in the federal electorate of Bass are able to access OEA's programs, which are administered Australia wide. These programs include providing assistance and advice to employers and employees on the Workplace Relations Act 1996, particularly Australian workplace agreements (AWAs), ensuring they meet all statutory requirements; handling alleged breaches of AWAs and the freedom of association provisions; and assisting parties in prosecuting alleged breaches of AWAs and the AWA and freedom of association provisions, where appropriate.(2) The level of funding provided for the OEA as a whole to enable it to undertake these functions was $14,080,000 in 1997-98, and $15,034,000 in 1998-99 (the period July to October 1998 represents a pro rata of $5,011,033).(3) The level of funding provided for the OEA as a whole to enable it to undertake these functions in 1999-2000 is $14,521,746.National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC)(1) NOHSC activities are directed at national issues, guidance and research and as such NOHSC does not undertake programs or make grants directed to providing assistance to particular geographic areas.(2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.7650(Question No. 1109)11097650O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 June 1999:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister's department provide assistance to people living in the federal electorate of Bass.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.7650Ellison, 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, 2 and 3Tasmania receives funding for government and non-government schools. However, information on the level of funds allocated to the electorate of Bass is not available for all programmes. Details of the programmes and allocations are at Attachment A. (The allocations are by calendar years as they are not available by financial years.)Details of Higher Education programmes and allocations are at Attachment B. (The allocations are by calendar years as they are not available by financial years.)Details of Training and Youth programmes and allocations by financial years are at Attachment C.Attachment ACommonwealth General Recurrent Funding to Non-government SchoolsSchool Name1997199819992000Total$$$$Community Christian Academy, Newstead82,714103,868106,073 *292,655John Calvin School, Launceston173,470158,829159,964 *492,263Larmenier School, St Leonards343,417347,563441,980 *1,132,960 Launceston Christian School, Riverside846,021913,304925,804 *2,685,129Launceston Church Grammar School, Mowbray Heights1,002,036934,534934,534 *2,871,104Launceston Preparatory School, Launceston117,564133,875134,820 *386,259Launceston Steiner School, Newstead48,77470,35972,135 *191,268Sacred Heart School, Launceston651,464699,628854,645 *2,205,737Scotch Oakburn College, Newstead844,244889,078889,078 *2,622,400St Anthony's School, Riverside North320,397410,490423,940 *1,154,827St Finn Barr's School, Invermay547,198423,211466,785 *1,437,194St Patrick's College, Prospect Vale2,858,2953,111,4123,167,680 *9,137,387St Thomas More's School, Newstead412,648556,855437,470 *1,406,973Star of the Sea College, George Town765,583871,834688,421 *2,325,838Total General Recurrent Grants9,013,8259,624,8409,703,329 28,341,994* Annual Entitlement—final payment figures not yet available.Commonwealth Capital Grants Funding to Non-government SchoolsSchool Name1997199819992000Total$$$$Launceston Church Grammar School, Mowbray Heights105,8932,148108,041St Patrick's College, Prospect Vale300,000356,245154,916811,161Launceston Christian School, Riverside144,65193,110189,94925,782453,492Launceston Steiner School, Newstead120,000120,000Community Christian Academy, Newstead120,000120,000Total Capital Grants250,544635,258546,194180,6981,612,694(Some Year 2000 figures are not available)Commonwealth Capital Funding to Government SchoolsSchool Name1997199819992000Total$$$$Lilydale District High, Lilydale1,362,0001,362,000Prospect High School, Summerdale1,084,0001,084,000Summerdale Primary School, Summerdale1,440,0001,440,000Total Capital Grants1,084,0002,802,0003,886,000Summary of Identifiable Commonwealth Grants for the Period 1997—2000Non-Government Schools1997199819992000$$$$General Recurrent GrantsGeneral Recurrent Basic per Capita Grants9,013,8259,624,8409,703,329Capital GrantsGeneral Element—BGA Projects250,544635,258546,194180,698Total Capital Grants250,544635,258546,194180,698Government Schools1997199819992000Capital GrantsGovernment Capital Grants Programme1,084,0002,802,000Total Commonwealth Funding10,348,36913,062,09810,249,523180,698(Some Year 2000 figures are not available)Attachment BThe Australian Maritime College and the Launceston campus of the University of Tasmania are situated in the electorate of Bass. The Hobart campus of the University of Tasmania is the electorate of Denison, and a small campus is located at Burnie in the electorate of Braddon. The following allocations represent total funding figures as it is not possible to identify what component of funding to the University of Tasmania is spent in the electorate of Bass.The University of TasmaniaType of funding1997199819992000$m$m$m$mOperating grant111.915108.208107.436105.232- Capital funding*5.7165.5545.5095.462- Research Quantum*5.6004.7524.8854.843- Aboriginal Support funding*0.6630.6340.5960.586Higher Education Equity Programme0.1340.1510.117tbaTargeted Research Funding11.23511.29911.348tbaCapital Development Pool1.7310.0000.6773.000Teaching Hospital Grants0.1350.1350.1350.135Restructuring & Rationalisation Programme0.0000.8400.0000.000* Component of, not addition to the operating grant.Australian Maritime CollegeType of funding1997199819992000$m$m$m$mOperating grant10.79210.76110.44510.337- Aboriginal Support funding*0.0530.0510.0430.036Higher Education Equity Programme0.0210.0220.023tbaTargeted Research Funding0.0930.1970.210tbaCapital Development Pool0.0000.0000.0000.240* Component of, not addition to the operating grant.Note: Funds may also be provided to both institutions in 1999 and 2000 under the Evaluations and Investigations Programme and the Higher Education Innovation Programme. These programmes are generally submission based and expenditure in Bass cannot be estimated at this stage.Targeted research funding for both institutions is yet to be allocated for 2000. The allocations are expected to be of the same order of magnitude as the 1999 allocations.Attachment CProgrammes1997-98 $1998-99 $1999-2000 $Job Placement, Employment & Training (JPET Programme)There were no JPET services based in the electorate of Bass for the 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 financial years. However a new service has been established for the 1999/2000 financial year—Anglicare Tasmania Inc.--125,000 Domestic Violence Prevention Workshops for Young PeopleThe following service was provided—Anglicare Tasmania Inc—Workshop services operated in various sites, including Scottsdale and Launceston-127,000-Career Counselling-1,7941,679Workplace English Language & Literacy Programme (WELL) Contracts to total funding value of:Please note this programme is application based—there are no figures for 1999/2000113,25585,492Green CorpsThere are ten participants per Green Corps project and the cost per project is $117,140.Projects are funded on a project by project basis;Project proposals are submitted to the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers (ATCV), the organisation contracted to administer Green Corps on behalf of the Government. Green Corps projects are considered through a selection-on-merit process which ensures that each project has a mix of activities and training opportunities for participants that address priority environmental issues; andThe Commonwealth has committed $90 million to continue the Green Corps programme for a further four financial years. Approximately $20 million has been provided to place 1,700 participants in the 1999/2000 financial year. The number of projects commencing in the electorate of Bass will be determined by the number of applications that are approved for commencement.Following is a description of Green Corps projects for the Electorate of Bass.The Green Corps (Young Australians for the Environment) ProgramBase Site: Tamar ValleyLocation Name: Tamar ValleyRound Number: TwoCommencement Date: 19/5/97Completion Date: 14/11/97Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe aim of the project was to assist the Tamar Valley Weed Strategy by the comprehensive mapping of weed infestations in the Tamar Valley. Major project activity included: weed mapping, including map interpretation; use of a GPS System; identification and eradication of weed plant species and the production of weed maps.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: North Esk RiverRound Number: TwoCommencement Date: 19/5/97Completion Date: 14/11/97 Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe aim of this project was to revegetate the banks of the North Esk River in accordance with the Hobler's Bridge Reserve Management Plan. Major project activities included tree planting and weed control along the North Esk River and bushland regeneration in Cataract Gorge.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: Cataract GorgeRound Number: ThreeCommencement Date: 15/9/97Completion Date: 13/3/98Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe project addressed priority environmental issues identified in the Cataract Gorge Reserve Management Plan by controlling bushland weeds and willows along the South Esk River. Repairs and maintenance on walking tracks throughout the Gorge Reserve were also undertaken.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: Tamar ValleyRound Number: FourCommencement Date: 1/12/97Completion Date: 29/5/98Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe project involved trialing biological control agents for invasive weeds, coordination of a related field day, weed mapping on public land and subsequent weed control.Base Site: Blackstone HeightsLocation Name: Pitcher Parade WetlandsRound Number: FourCommencement Date: 1/12/97Completion Date: 29/5/98Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140 Project descriptionThe project involved the creation of a wetland to reduce the level of nutrient flow to the South Esk River and provide a wildlife corridor. Project work included: plant surveys; establishing wetland vegetation and bridge and track construction.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: North Esk RiverRound Number: FourCommencement Date: 1/12/97Completion Date: 29/5/98Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe project involved the control of crack willow regrowth, river bank stabilisation, construction of a walkway along the North Esk River and Distillery Creek and tree planting and environmental weed control in Distillery Creek Gorge.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: LauncestonRound Number: FiveCommencement Date: 6/4/98Completion Date: 2/10/98Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe project involved bushland weed control in remnant bushland, re-planting and stabilisation of the banks of Jiggler Creek, construction of a path through a public reserve and erosion control works.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: LauncestonRound Number: SixCommencement Date: 29/6/98Completion Date: 24/12/98Status: CompletedFunding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe project involved bushland regeneration and constructing walking tracks with the Launceston City Council. Specific tasks included planting, weed eradication, and walking track construction.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: Punchbowl ReserveRound Number: NineCommencement Date: 30/11/98Completion Date: 28/5/99Status: Completed Funding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe project aimed to remove environmental weeds from significant remnant bushland adjoining the Kingsmeadow Rivulet. Degraded areas were revegetated with native plant species. The team also undertook survey and bush regeneration work in the Punchbowl Reserve.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: Mt DirectionRound Number: TenCommencement Date: 8/2/99Completion Date: 6/8/99Status: Project to be completed on 6/8/99Funding: $117, 140Project descriptionThe Mt Direction Semaphore Station was the central link in a chain of semaphores connecting Launceston to Georgetown. It was constructed in 1835 and operated until 1858. This project is removing encroaching vegetation from the remains of the bluestone buildings and constructing a high standard walking track to the site. The project will help to prevent further deterioration of the site, control public access and increase public awareness of the heritage value of the area. Specific tasks have included site surveying, track construction and installation of interpretive signage.Base Site: LauncestonLocation Name: Cataract ReserveRound Number: ElevenCommencement Date: 19/4/99Completion Date: 15/10/99Status: Project to be completed on 15/10/99Funding: $117, 140Project descriptionThis project aims to restore the bushland of the Hardwicke St Reserve, which forms an important buffer zone to Cataract Gorge Reserve. The team will construct a new path to control public access and prevent erosion. Associated weed management undertaken by the project in the reserve will prevent environmental weeds entering Cataract Gorge Reserve. The project will continue crack willow control to prevent the spread of the willow in the South Esk River where it runs into the gorge.7654(Question No. 1117)11177654Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 June 1999:(1) What was the total number of animals used in scientific experimentation in all universities in Australia in the past year (either the 1998 calendar year or the 1998-1999 financial year).(2) What species (common name), and number of each species, were used in all universities in Australia in the past year (either the 1998 calendar year or the 1998-1999 financial year).(3) At each Australian university, what species (common name), and number of each species, were used in the past year (either the 1998 calendar year or the 1998-1999 financial year).(4) Are animals which are housed at universities or universities facilities included in the same statistics for animals which are used in scientific experiments at universities.7655Ellison, 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:Australia does not have a database which can provide compatible and consistent information across the various States and Territories in relation to the number and species of animals used in scientific experimentation in all universities in Australia. I am informed that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has funded the development of a software package for the collection of statistics, although this is not in consistent use in Australia.Legislation relating to animal use in Australia is handled within the various State and Territory jurisdictions. Not all States currently collect information and I understand that which is collected is neither consistent nor comparable.7655(Question No. 1119)11197655Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 June 1999:(1) Has federal funding been awarded to a religious organisation operating in Queensland, known as the Magnificat Meal Movement, for educational or other purposes.(2) (a) Has funding been sought by this organisation; and (b) have any requests been supported in writing or otherwise by any state government agency or individual.(3) If funding was received: (a) for what purpose was it awarded; and (b) under what criteria. 7655Ellison, 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) There is no record of any direct federal funding to the Magnificat Meal Movement under Commonwealth programs administered by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA).(2) (a) and b) DETYA was not able to detect any requests for funding or submissions supporting the provision of assistance to the organisation.7655(Question No. 1181)11817655O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 July 1999:(1) (a) What level of Commonwealth funding was provided for higher education in Tasmania in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what level of funding has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) What was the level of funding in each of the above years for: (a) operating resources; (b) capital grants; (c) the Higher Education Contribution Scheme; and (d) evaluations and investigations.(3) What was the level of funding, by component, in each of the above financial years for targeted research and scientific development.7655Ellison, 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) (a) The Commonwealth provides funding from the Higher Education Funding Act (HEFA) to higher education institutions on a calendar year basis. Financial year allocations have been determined by splitting each calendar year allocation into equal components. The estimated level of Commonwealth funding provided to higher education institutions in Tasmania (University of Tasmania and Australian Maritime College) from HEFA for the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 financial years is:1995/96—$128.027 million1996/97—$128.315 million1997/98—$132.864 million1998/99—$132.159 million(b) As institutional appropriations for 2000 have not been determined an estimate of the appropriation for the 1999/2000 financial year cannot be provided at this stage. (2) The estimated funding allocated to Tasmanian higher education institutions for operating resources, capital grants, Higher Education Contribution Scheme and evaluations and investigations in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 financial years is detailed below. Operating resources includes funding for the base operating grant, restructuring and rationalisation program, superannuation, higher education innovations program, higher education equity program and teaching hospital grants.1995/961996/971997/981998/991999/2000$'000$'000$'000$'000$'000Operating Resources98,41796,66593,15388,091Not availableCapital grants0837837339Not availableHigher Education Contribution Scheme20,72923,08327,77032,334Not availableEvaluations and investigations76000Not available(3) The estimated funding allocated to Tasmanian higher education institutions for targeted research and scientific development in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 financial years is detailed below.Research Funding Component1995/961996/971997/981998/991999/2000$'000$'000$'000$'000$'000Special Research Centres430565832845Not availableARC—Large Grants Scheme2,2732,4582,5792,734Not availableARC—Small Grants Scheme638691721721Not availableARC—Special Research Initiatives0066Not availableInfrastructure—Block Grants1,2251,8021,8011,754Not availableInfrastructure—Equipment & Facilities839725490408Not availableCollaborative—ongoing568713663418Not availableAustralian Postgraduate Awards1,9651,9871,8801,857Not availableSPIRT—(including APA (Industry) & Collaborative)6007459151,296Not availableResearch Fellowships536448460704Not availableInternational Researcher Exchange022264Not availableInternational Postgraduate Research 244301312273Not availableTotal Research9,31910,45910,68511,0187656(Question No. 1202)12027656O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, 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 variation; 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.7656Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) None.(2) Not applicable.(3) Not applicable.(4) Not applicable. (5) In 1997-98 and part of 1998-99, four departmental officers were engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production. This work covered a very small part of the officers' duties and involved being a member of, and providing secretariat support to, a working group of the Supermarket to Asia Council.(6) For 1999-2000, no specific financial provision has been made for staff to work on the use of gene technology in food production. However, the work of Biotechnology Australia in co-ordinating Commonwealth work on biotechnology, and the development of a National Biotechnology Strategy and public awareness campaign will encompass issues of gene technology in food production.(7) The qualifications of the departmental officers engaged in the work related to the use of gene technology in food production in 1997-98 and part of 1998-99 were (a) Doctor of Philosophy with research experience in biotechnology; (b) Doctor of Philosophy in science; (c) Doctor of Philosophy in physical chemistry; and (d) Bachelor of Economics (Honours).7657(Question No. 1205)12057657West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 15 July 1999:With reference to the answer to question no. 43 placed on notice at the Community Affairs Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 2 June 1999, which states that `97 per cent was recovered from debts arising from customer actions' and that `3 per cent was recovered from debts classified as resulting from "administrative error":(1) Can a breakdown be provided as to what `customer actions' are included in the above quotation.(2) (a) How many people constitute the 3 per cent; (b) over what period of time are these repayments to be made; and (c) can a breakdown be provided of what payments these overpayments occurred in, for example, Newstart, et cetera.7657Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The main categories of debts recovered in the period 1 July 1998 to 31 December 1998 were as follows:58.5%—resulted from the failure of customers to notify of a relevant change in their income, including underestimating family income, or some other family circumstance (eg. marriage, incarceration or additional assets).* 20.7%—were recoveries following the settlement of a customer's compensation claim.* 7.8%—were associated with a customer's transfer to a different benefit type.s* 3.6%—resulted from the recovery of Advance Payments to customers.The balance of 9.4% comprise a large number of small categories including payment after death, false ID and the previously advised administrative error category.(2) (a) 40,796; (b) the duration of repayments and recovery arrangements for administrative error debts vary, as they do for all categories of debts, on a case by case basis. Some customers are able to make a one-off payment in settlement of their debt, whereas others, because of their financial circumstances, arrange to repay their debt through deductions to their continuing entitlements; and (c) the following table breaks down the administrative error debt recoveries across Centrelink's payment systems for the period.1 July 1998 to 30 December 1998.Payment System%Newstart53Pensions16Families20Parenting10Other1Total100%7658(Question No. 1206)12067658West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 15 July 1999:With reference to the answer to question no. 26 placed on notice at the Community Affairs Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 2 June 1999, which states that a total of 475 social workers were employed: Were all these 475 social workers employed full-time; if not, can a breakdown be provided of how many were full-time, half-time, et cetera: (a) as of December 1998; and (b) the projected figures for December 1999.7658Newman, 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:Centrelink employs social workers on a full-time and part-time basis in order to provide more flexible employment options for staff with family care responsibilities; (a) figures are not available for December 1998; and (b) the projected figures for December 1999 are not available.To assist Senator West, Centrelink have provided the following details: at 30 June 1999 Centrelink employed 495 social workers, equivalent to 438.5 full-time positions with 395 employed full-time and 100 employed part-time.7659(Question No. 1207)12077659West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 15 July 1999:With reference to the answer to question no. 28 placed on notice at the Community Affairs Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 2 June 1999: Are the average provided in the answer measured in days or weeks.7659Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The appointment times provided in the answer are measured in working days.