1999-08-253914SENATE765901999-08-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills7659r6467659Debate resumed from 24 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".09:31:007659Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In commencing my address on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 I must address some of the inaccuracies given in the chamber yesterday by Senator Bolkus, who tried to say that, because of the Environment Protection and Diversity Conservation Act, the Democrats were responsible for RFA regions being excluded from the Environment Protection Act. He is trying to rewrite history by saying that it needs to go on the Senate record. I think the rebuttal needs to go on the Senate record too. No doubt the motive for this is so that the speech can be circulated to conservation groups in an attempt to show that Senator Bolkus has actually done something on the environment. I challenge Senator Bolkus to read the record himself. That blood is not on our hands, because it was Senator Bolkus who directed the Labor Party to stand with the government and vote down our attempts to make RFA legislation subordinate to national environmental legislation.Turning to the main body of my remarks, I rise to speak on this bill as a very strong supporter of a viable forestry industry based on plantations, selective logging of regrowth forests and long-term sustainable forestry based on ecologically sound principles. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill must be described as one of the most significant environmental decisions this parliament will make. Trees, like people, are long term. Governments, both state and federal, will be judged by future generations for the actions taken on this legislation.This bill presents ethical and constitutional issues as well as potential legal and financial difficulties for the Commonwealth and for the taxpayer, which should be resolved to the satisfaction of the Senate before it considers passing the bill. Legally, this legislation sets a disturbing precedent. It says that the community can know that an agreement has been reached but not know what the specific terms of the agreement are and that the normal powers of the community's representatives, the parliamentarians, are going to be circumscribed in relation to their knowledge of these agreements. That is not a transparent democratic process and, regardless of the political views of senators in the chamber, should not be one that is supported.There is a lot of talk about certainty in the context of this legislation, but there is no environmental certainty under the RFA process. The Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement process, for example, has been an unmitigated disaster. It was supposed to bring an end to the divisiveness and conflict of the forest debate, but our televisions tell us nightly that the opposite is true. The WA RFA was supposed to be supported by 400 scientists, but no-one can find them. It was supposed to manage forests, but one-third of its coverage is for cleared or non-forest land. As things stand, the Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement, controlled as it has been by the discredited Department of Conservation and Land Management, known as CALM, and other special interests, has served up an RFA which fails to meet the needs of and opportunities for the forestry industry for forest conservation, for forest management and for sustainable forest development in Western Australia.This agreement has had no final public scrutiny. It has not been a transparent exercise. Right from the outset the Court government, through CALM, has been absolutely determined to conceal the extent and the impact of native forest destruction. Contrary to the impression given, less than seven per cent of the total log volume extracted from our native forests ends up as value added produce. Eighty-three per cent of the total log volume ends up as woodchips, industrial charcoal and forest waste. In years to come, historians will condemn CALM executives and their political and commercial allies for the wanton destruction of this irreplaceable resource. The view which I express here is one which splits all the major parties. Unlike the misguided but well-meaning land clearing policies which produced the salinity disaster in Western Australia, the RFA fiasco is different in that the Court government and CALM—I always describe them as Genghis CALM because of their split personality—know exactly what they are doing. State and Commonwealth ministers have made themselves complicit in the concealment that CALM has carried out. The lack of transparency is increased by the absence of the community, tourism interests, independent scientists and non-exploitative government agencies from the formal RFA process.Public emotion is running high in Western Australia in protests for and against the RFA policy. It has split country from city but has also split country person from country person and city person from city person. It has split political parties. It has split businesses. It has split the society. Thousands and thousands of people have taken to the streets to voice their opposition to logging of old-growth forests. Survey results show that 87 per cent of Western Australians want to see old-growth forests protected and an end to woodchipping and clear-felling. Hundreds of vociferous loggers have voiced their support for woodchipping and clear-felling old-growth forests. This is not an issue which will die with this bill, and this bill will in fact exacerbate the situation.We have seen an unprecedented divide in political circles in Western Australia, with the National Party alienating itself from its coalition partners by calling for greater protection for forests and the Labor Party split but at least warning timber industry workers that they must accept change. Longstanding Liberal supporters have joined the protest marches. Our state environment minister, Cheryl Edwardes, is all at sea and the only lifeline that the federal coalition threw her was forestry minister Wilson Tuckey. Now she sometimes says wryly, `Wilson is just being Wilson,' so even those two cannot get along.During the RFA review period, I am told that some 30,000 submissions were received from concerned Western Australians. Of those an estimated 25,000 submissions directly opposed the logging of the remaining 10 per cent of WA's old-growth forest. Even if we accept that some of those submissions were simply form letters and were manufactured by rote, nevertheless the television stations, the newspapers and the discussions that people are having in their kitchens and in public places all indicate acute Western Australian disquiet over this process.It is our federal and state governments' duty to pave the way for our forestry industry to be self-sufficient. Long-term, sustainable industries create employment and will see regional towns in the South-West of WA thrive well into the future. Plantations are the way of the future for the timber industry and there is a great deal of work to be done in replanting many denuded areas of Western Australia. The community is right behind a sustainable forestry industry; it is not right behind the clear-felling or logging of old-growth forest.Plantations have been productive in WA for the past 25 years and now account for two-thirds of the timber used in paper production, a fact largely unknown by the public. We should be grateful for what I think was a conservative government in WA that, way back then, began the plantation industry. Unfortunately, the conservative and Labor governments that followed did not continue with investment in and encouragement of this industry on a sufficient basis. Thankfully, they are starting to really get behind the plantation industry again.However, despite the commercial success of plantations, the WA government maintains the provision of subsidies for the clear-felling, commercial users of native forests. Every dollar of welfare to native forest users under mines the competing, inherently superior and community supported plantation based forestry industry. It is understandable, of course, that organisations currently receiving extensive subsidies will resist any measures that threaten to reduce them. It is also understandable that the Department of Conservation and Land Management, CALM, which benefits financially from logging old-growth forests, would be very reluctant to sever its cosy arrangements with the big timber companies. But this co-dependence should never have been allowed to develop and must now stop.Who do we think actually funded all those trucks and workers to stay outside the state parliament of WA for a week or more? It was not the unions and it was not the workers; it was the companies. There is a lot of money tied up in this and there is a lot of concern in the companies that the basically unsustainable subsidy system will be eroded by public pressure. CALM—or Genghis CALM, as I prefer to call it—is in the outrageous position of being responsible for both the conservation and the exploitation of forests. In 1996 the Democrats put out an issues paper believing that that department should be split to reflect these two conflicting policies. Thankfully, the Court government is finally starting to recognise the wisdom of that and hopefully will move to do just that. It is impossible for any organisation to fairly administer a resource with such conflicting imperatives. There is no question that CALM must be divided into two clearly differentiated bodies to avoid these profound conflicts of interest.Increasing the use of plantation timbers would do much to preserve native forests, protect biodiversity and reduce social conflict, and it is likely to do so while boosting employment, contributing to gross national product and fostering regional development. Fewer than 2,000 people are directly employed in the native forest timber industry, not 20,000 as some in the government would have us believe. Many more people are already employed by the plantation industry, and this number would escalate if the industry were allowed to flourish as it should.A media release of 22 July 1999 from the Western Australian Forest Alliance indicated that there are currently about 1,500 direct jobs in the native forest based timber woodchip industry. It said that, by maximising the use of WA's pine and blue gum plantations and by developing a low volume, high value jarrah and karri furniture industry based on regrowth forest, government and the private sector could create over 3,000 new jobs, most of them immediately and without destroying any more old-growth forests. The new jobs that it outlined were 800 in pine processing, 400 in a new woodchip export industry based on blue gum plantations, 1,500-plus jobs in the value added jarrah, karri and marri furniture and fine woodcraft industries and 800 in plantation based pulp mills. That is a total of 3,000 new jobs, and the Western Australian Forest Alliance is firmly and fully supportive of a sustainable forest industry.No matter how you look at it, natural old-growth forests are worth far more standing up than they would ever be worth chopped down. One of the reasons I support accrual accounting is that I hope that governments will start to produce balance sheets which properly indicate, in the valuation of the state and federal resources, the value of our forests. In America people pay big tourist dollars to see giant trees. In Western Australia people pay big tourist dollars to see giant trees, yet our government makes sure that most 350-year-old giants are cut down for charcoal or woodchips. Tourists will pay to enjoy the forest over and over again, but a smelter or a woodchip mill will see magnificent old-growth trees once and once only and then they are gone forever.Clear-felling does not generate employment. With today's modern equipment it takes three men three days to clear-fell 100 hectares of forest and another handful of men to cart the logs away. By the end of the week those men are again looking for work. Let me repeat that: it takes three men three days to clear-fell 100 hectares of forest. That is not sustainable employment.Woodchipping currently accounts for almost half of the logs taken from the South-West of Western Australia and yet, so I am advised, directly and indirectly employs less than 80 people. Timber industry workers at the centre of the logging debate are being manipulated by the big timber industry players and the companies into thinking that the end of logging old-growth forests means an end to the forestry industry. It does not. Timber towns are blaming the antilogging groups for the breaking of the social fabric of their communities, but it is strange that communities in the drylands where there are no forests are experiencing the same social problems that all country and regional towns are experiencing. To blame it all on the old-growth forest antilogging movement is entirely wrong.No doubt the same fears and arguments were raised when slavery was stamped out. No doubt the people of Albany thought their town would die when whaling stopped, and I expect some people thought society would be ruined when women got the vote and equal pay. Really, this is an issue that society needs to manage a lot better than it is at present. All those things I mentioned have come to pass with none of the feared consequences, and I think that forest management is in the same category. I do not think it is an easy problem to solve, because if it were it would have been solved, but affected workers deserve every form of assistance possible in moving into a largely plantation based forestry industry.This is a problem that must be solved. The Dutch Ministry of Public Works have refused to buy karri timber from Western Australia for canal linings because the results of their study into CALM failed to demonstrate that old-growth karri forests in Western Australia are sustainably managed. Other foreign countries and organisations are starting to take similar action. There will be commercial pressure, not just public pressure, on governments and on these companies to change their habits.City councils in Perth and in New South Wales have boycotted companies that are involved in woodchipping Australia's native forests. Some estimate that Boral will lose between $5 million and $10 million a year as a direct result of its woodchipping interests. In these matters the government should be a leader, not a follower. It should recognise the social, economic and forestry trends which require it to end the days of woodchipping, logging and clear-felling of old-growth forests.The issue of logging versus antilogging in old-growth forests will not go away; that much is clear from the intensity of the debate, the diversity of the protesters and the passionate nature of the issues. The RFAs have been touted by governments as the last word on forests. It has been claimed that, once the agreements are signed, they are ironclad guarantees about what will happen in forest areas for up to 20 years. But according to the consultant Alistair Graham, even after the Tasmanian RFA was signed `by some of the highest ministers in the land', he said, the officials are still blithely going on, destroying thousands and thousands of hectares by changing the boundaries of the maps that were behind the documents which the minister signed. That kind of activity becomes an issue of accountability and proper auditing.The financial impact statement from the explanatory memorandum of the national RFA bill says, `There will be no direct financial impacts from the passage of the RFA bill.' Any costs and savings will be the result of the establishment, implementation and operation of the RFAs themselves. But we know that this bill enacts the RFAs and that they will be very expensive. It is disingenuous to state that the bill itself has no financial implications, because the financial implications are filtered through the RFAs. I remind honourable senators that the Commonwealth is liable to pay any compensation that is required to be paid to a state in accordance with the compensation provisions of an RFA. That is in clear contrast, as I understand it, to the statement in the explanatory memorandum, which I read earlier.It seems to me that this bill has direct financial implications and that the explanatory memorandum is therefore misleading the Senate. I think that is a question the parliamentary secretary should address in her response. I believe the Senate should regard this matter gravely and all senators, whatever side of the forest debate they feel closest to, should separate their feelings on that issue from the sheer accountability problems of this bill. Do we accept a bill given to us with the assurance that there will be no direct financial implications and pass it, knowing full well that there are extraordinary and unlimited financial consequences?We as the parliamentarians of this country cannot stand by and let one of our most precious resources slip through our fingers, neither can we commit ourselves to unlimited and unknown levels of financial compensation to an industry that has already benefited handsomely from state and federal government assistance for decades.09:49:007663Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . The bulk of the criticisms raised by non-government speakers about the bill focuses not on the bill but on alleged deficiencies in the regional forest agreement process itself. I must say at the outset that the government rejects those criticisms. The RFA process represents the most rigorous and scientifically based assessment of our native forest resource ever undertaken, including the biodiversity it supports and the regimes required to ensure ecologically sustainable management of that forest resource on a regional basis. It does not end with the signing of the RFAs. We should not gloss over the fact that RFAs are designed to provide both a blueprint for ongoing improvement in the management of our forests and a basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry.RFAs provide for a world-class national, comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and will clearly identify those forest resources available for multiple use, including resources available for sustainable timber harvesting. RFAs and the comprehensive and transparent process that lead to them provide industry, environmental interests and the community with unprecedented certainty. However, it is clear that industry and environmental groups alike are concerned that future governments might simply walk away from such agreements. These concerns are under standable. That is exactly what previous governments have done when it suited them and what the current Western Australian government appears to be doing right now.To address these concerns, the government has introduced this bill, which underpins, as far as the Commonwealth government is concerned, its commitment to the RFA process and its outcomes. This bill provides RFAs with the legislative backing to ensure that all Australians can have confidence in the long-term management of Australia's forest estate as far as the Commonwealth is able to do.Clearly, control of native forests and lands rests largely with the states. However, through the RFA process the Commonwealth has been able to work with the states to ensure that, across all of Australia, adequate levels of native forest reserves are protected. At the same time, the RFA process ensures that the remaining forests are managed on a sustainable basis. The Commonwealth cannot stop individual states from unilaterally taking action outside these arrangements, but the Commonwealth can examine whether the state has breached the RFA and, if so, it can consider what action it might take to remedy the situation within the terms of the RFA. This legislation ensures that the Commonwealth will continue to ensure that its commitments made under the RFA are met.In summary, the RFAs themselves remain the focus of the Commonwealth government's policy approach. It firmly believes that community and investor confidence in forest industries will be secured by strong RFAs which provide for ecologically sustainable management of our forests. This bill will add to that confidence. This is not to say that the government is putting all its eggs in one basket. Much has been said about the current capacity of plantation sourced wood to replace wood sourced from native forests. While these comments represent a simplistic assessment of the real situation, they also fail to acknowledge the great initiatives being undertaken through Vision 2020 to treble the area of plantations in Australia by the year 2020—a vision which is well on track.As outlined in the second reading speech, the government is also taking action to facilitate industry development and higher value adding, particularly through the action agenda process, so that this country can play a positive role in the provision and utilisation of a sustainable resource in an international marketplace. That is why a vital and sustainable native forest industry is needed right now to ensure that we have a viable and sustainable forest and wood products industry into the future with both native forest and plantation based components. I have already stated that this bill provides a broad legislative base for RFAs, with each RFA including provisions appropriate to the region concerned. Consequently, the bill is concise, and it has been drafted to ensure that it can accommodate the necessary flexibility within and between individual RFAs.One of the main objectives is to provide legislative rigour for RFA termination and compensation provisions. The bill will ensure that the termination of an RFA will have no effect unless done in accordance with the RFA's termination provisions. It will also ensure that the Commonwealth is liable for any breach it makes of an RFA while it is in force, even if the agreement is subsequently terminated or expires. The bill provisions will mean that the Commonwealth will not be able to agree to water down termination or compensation provisions in the future without legislative amendment. The bill also provides that the termination and compensation provisions in the RFA at the time of the commencement of the legislation, or the provisions which apply at the commencement of the RFA itself, whichever is later, will continue to apply.The other main objective of the bill is to remove certain Commonwealth controls and restrictions which in the past have been used as an indirect means to attempt to control timber harvesting. Time and again the government of the day has been involved in a highly emotional and highly politicised imbroglio surrounding the issue of licences to export hardwood woodchips derived from native forests, as if this Commonwealth action could in any meaningful way ensure either sustain able levels of harvesting within a state or that that harvesting was undertaken in an environmentally friendly manner.That process is in stark contrast to the RFA process, which is based on comprehensive scientific assessments of the environmental, heritage, economic and social value of forests in the region. Such comprehensive assessments conclude the Commonwealth's environment and heritage obligations in relation to forestry operations in the RFA regions. For that reason, the bill exempts RFA forestry operations from specific trigger provisions contained in current Commonwealth environmental and heritage legislation. Therefore, contrary to the claims of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens, there is no abrogation of the Commonwealth's powers in this respect.I welcome the opposition's support, at least in principle, for the bill. However, the opposition has foreshadowed a number of amendments to the bill. The government will not be supporting those amendments on the grounds that they are constitutionally invalid, unworkable or do nothing to improve the effectiveness of the legislation. For example, the opposition will be proposing a mechanism so that parliament can disapprove RFAs before they are able to be signed and obtain the protection of the bill. The main concern appears to be that if the Commonwealth is going to exempt the operation of Commonwealth legislation on forestry operations under an RFA, it must be confident that the replacement regime is just as rigorous.Without going into any detail at this time, we believe that this proposed amendment has serious deficiencies, both constitutionally and practically. The government also believes that adequate scrutiny by parliament is achieved through acceptance of the measures recommended by the majority report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, which recently reviewed the bill. That report recommended that, while the bill should be passed without amendment, each RFA should be tabled in parliament after it is signed; that the first five annual reports of the operation of RFAs should be tabled in parliament; and that the ABS be requested to, when compiling its annual survey of employment, compile comprehensive employment information for each RFA region.The Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, MP, has already publicly welcomed the recommendations of the majority report. We agree that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, completed RFAs should be tabled in parliament. We believe that the Commonwealth parliament should focus on monitoring the implementation of all RFAs, and so agree that the annual report should be tabled in parliament. We also agree that better information on employment impacts is an important part of monitoring the implementation of RFAs, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics will be consulted about how it might best contribute.I am also intrigued by the amendments to the bill to be moved by the Australian Greens. In his minority report, Senator Brown recommended that the bill be opposed. He is now proposing that the bill be passed with certain amendments. Is this a dramatic about-face? No, not when you examine those proposed amendments. Contrary to the national forest policy statement, which was adopted by all states and territories and the Commonwealth, it is still the Australian Greens' unbending goal to prohibit all logging from native forests. That goal is anathema to the government, and we will oppose the Green amendments. We will, however, be proposing our own amendment, consistent with the recommendation of the majority report, to establish a forest product advisory council; its functions and constitutions to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the bill to the Senate.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative. Original question put: That this bill be now read a second time.10:05:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)51Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Harris, L.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Lees, M. H.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.7665The bill.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—We are considering the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . Before we commence, there is a whole series of Democrat amendments to opposition amendments, which have just been circularised and are not reflected on the revised running sheet dated 25 August, 8.56 a.m. As the first amendments are opposition amendments, I would warn senators wanting to speak to this bill that there will be further amendments to those amendments. The question is that the bill stand as printed.10:10:007666Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—At the outset, it is very important to get the objects of the bill into train. It is clearly the object of this bill, as it stands, that there will be massive incursions into hundreds of thousands of hectares of Australia's remaining wild forests over the next 20 years, with no Commonwealth intervention whatsoever. These are unprotected forests and ecosystems and they contain half of Australia's species of plants, animals and birds. Many of those species are threatened, endangered and vulnerable to extinction.The logging industry will become the master of management of these forests through state forest authorities, like Forestry Tasmania and CALM in Western Australia, which have a record of indifference to the environment. In fact, they have a record of planning in such a fashion as to damage the environmental amenity of the states they are in, because they put the profits and the interests of the woodchip corporations first.We need to be very clear that the objectives of this bill are anti-environmental. They in no way enhance the environment of Australia's forests, which, I repeat, have half the species of natural entities in this nation. This bill aims to put Australia's natural heritage—half of it in terms of species—into the hands of the agents most likely to destroy it for short-term profit, against the wishes of the great majority of the Australian people, who own these forests. That will be the outcome of this legislation, and the objects should be commensurate with that.We are dealing now with an amendment from the Labor Party which would revise the objects of the bill. The Democrats have a series of amendments which seek to bring the natural part of the forest equation, the most vital part, back onto the agenda. But I would first ask the parliamentary secretary if she can assure this parliament that she is personally across the matter in a way which means that there will be no diminution in forest ecosystems in Australia or in the wildlife populations in forests in Australia as a result of the incursions of the woodchip industry into hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest in the coming 20 years under this bill.10:13:007666Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (R1) and (2):(R1) Page 2 (after line 4), after clause 2, insert:2A The objects of this Act (1) The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to ensure that Regional Forest Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States are consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992; and (b) to establish a Wood and Paper Industry Council. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it: (a) provides for: (i) the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources; and (ii) the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products; and (iii) the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia; and (iv) the protection of nature conservation values in forests; and (v) conservation of the full range of values that forests can provide for current and future generations, including biological diversity and heritage, indigenous and other cultural values; and (vi) the protection of catchment values to ensure the availability of reliable high quality water supplies from forested areas; and (vii) the expansion of employment opportunities and the skills base of people working in the forested industries; and (b) ensures that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements; and (c) applies the precautionary principle within the meaning of section 3.5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 ); and (d) fosters community understanding of and support for ecologically sustainable forest management; and (e) provides opportunities for public participation in decision making.(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 24), before paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (aa) the agreement has regard to the objects of this Act;I note at the outset that Senator Brown, in his contribution a moment ago, said that we are dealing with the proposed objects to be inserted into the bill by virtue of the opposition's amendments. Let me outline very clearly the opposition's position in respect of the legislation and, in particular, these amendments. As we have stated on a number of occasions, the opposition strongly supports the regional forest agreement process. I do not need to repeat all of the history, suffice it to say that this process was commenced by the previous Labor government and carried on by the current coalition government.This process was developed to try to bring balance to the intractable, ongoing debate year after year with respect to, on the one hand, our forestry industry and, on the other, the conservation of our native forests. The RFA process was established to enable the states and the Commonwealth to enter into agreements in various regions throughout Australia which would provide resource security to the industry, contribute to and enhance the conservation of our great forest estate, promote the development of a plantation based industry and, further, promote downstream processing, value adding for our forest industries.As I have noted on previous occasions, the government introduced this bill into the parliament last year. They claimed at the time that this was of such urgency that it had to be rushed through the committee process of the Senate and dealt with in the first week of the parliamentary sittings this year. Of course, a great deal of time has elapsed. The government has procrastinated on whether or not it would actually bring on this legislation. The minister has, on a number of occasions, threatened to withdraw the legislation if the opposition dared to seek to amend the bill or if the Senate passed amendments to the bill. Finally, today we are getting into the real meat of the debate.We have said all along that we support the RFA process in principle and, indeed, support legislation being put through the parliament to underpin and guarantee that process into the future. However, we have also made it very clear in the Senate committee report and in speeches in various debates in this chamber and in the other place that this bill needs substantial improvement.You only have to look at the length of the bill to recognise that fact. I am not suggesting that the mere length of legislation is determinative of how good it is; short and sweet may well be better in many cases. However, what is clearly noticeable when you look at the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is what has been left out rather than what has been included. One would have thought that for legislation as important as this not only to the regional forest agreements process but also to the future of the forest industry, to the future of conservation of forests and to, hopefully, ensure harmony into the future, the government would have been more conscious of the need to spell out in greater detail the purpose of the legislation.The absence of an objects clause, we believe, is a serious deficiency. I understand as well as anyone that often legislation contains an objects clause that may be regarded as a bit of window-dressing and may not be of all that much assistance when it comes to interpreting particular legislation.I well remember many occasions in my former career as a union official in the industrial relations field how often people would refer to the fact that the objects clause of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or subsequently the Industrial Relations Act, had been ignored. But, nevertheless, we would submit that it is extremely important in this legislation to have at the very outset of the bill, the proposed act, clauses which set out the objects of the legislation. That is why we have proposed these amendments. Frankly, I cannot, for the life of me, see why the government would not accept the proposed amendments. If you look at them, they are not controversial. Further, they spell out the fundamental basis of this legislation as referred to in the minister's second reading speech.In his second reading speech, Mr Tuckey explicitly linked the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 to the 1992 national forest policy statement. He described the legislation as being `the framework for a long-term and lasting resolution of forest industry conservation and community interests and expectations concerning our nation's forests'. The national forest policy statement is an extensive document put together by cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states which was agonised over and resolved as an agreement to deal with a very difficult and heated debate within the forest industry. You would think that, if nothing else, the legislation would acknowledge the importance of the national forest policy statement to the whole process and that reference would be made to it in the legislation.What we have done, firstly, is spell out that the objects of this legislation are to ensure that regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states are consistent with the national forest policy statement of 1992. If the government does not agree with that, I ask: does it no longer subscribe to the principles of the national forest policy statement? Does it no longer believe that that is the basis upon which RFAs have been negotiated to date and are to be negotiated in future, and to apply for the next 20 years? If the answer is, as the minister says, that this bill is based upon that statement, then he and the government can have no legitimate reason as to why it should not be referred to in an objects clause within the bill.The second object is to establish a wood and paper industry council, which is something this government says it supports. All people, irrespective of their views about the forestry debate, at least recognise that a body of that nature is required to promote proper development and value adding within the forestry industry in the future. Indeed, the government has belatedly indicated by its own amendment that at least it supports that proposal in principle. We will deal with that later because the government does not accept that it should be enshrined in legislation.A further proposal within proposed clause 2(a) sets out the basis of the national forest policy statement. That is quite a lengthy clause, which I do not need to read to the chamber. It picks up the provisions of the national forest policy statement and reads:For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a)—that is, ensuring that regional forest agreements are consistent with the national forest policy statement—a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it—Then it lists a series of requirements that RFAs have to comply with which are taken word for word from the national forest policy statement. They are the criteria which RFAs must have regard to and must adhere to if they are to be genuine regional forest agreements.Our proposal is that the bill needs to be amended to insert an objects clause. We believe that, unlike other legislation, the objects clause in this legislation will be extremely important because it sets out the tests that both the public and federal and state parliaments can have regard to when they are assessing whether or not regional forest agreements have been properly negotiated in accordance with the national forest policy statement. We ask all senators, particularly government senators, to recognise the importance of having an objects clause of this nature in the bill. We ask the committee to support these amendments.10:28:007668Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Firstly, in reply to Senator Brown's comments on these amendments, I indicated in my speech at the second reading stage that RFAs are based on a sustainable forest system and you have given no evidence that biodiversity or the ecosystem will be damaged or removed by the activity of the RFAs. I consider your comments to be not correct.I would like to comment on the opposition amendments. The proposed subjective criteria which Senator Forshaw has put forward in 1(a) are a recipe for confusion, dispute and possible litigation. In any event, of these 11 criteria, at least six—that is, paragraphs 2(a)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and 2(b)—are superfluous in that they are more effectively covered in the bill's definition of what constitutes an RFA.Of the other five criteria, paragraph 2(a)(i) requires the RFA to provide for internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources, and paragraph 2(a)(vii) requires the RFA to provide for the expansion of employment opportunities and the skills base of people working in the forest industry.It was never contemplated that the NFPS could possibly be delivered through a single piece of Commonwealth legislation. Neither can those NFPS commitments be delivered through RFAs. Under the opposition's amendment, national goals set under the NFPS at page 5 are sought to be `pursued within a regionally based planning framework that integrates environmental and commercial objects', recognising that `state and territory governments have primary responsibility for forest management'—page 1 of the NFPS. No general Commonwealth legislative prescription can hope to achieve this.In relation to industry development, it has to be remembered that the RFA is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the state, establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve and ecologically sustainable forest management. It does not and cannot control markets. There are obviously employment and industry development clauses in some RFAs that are already signed, and there is very clear encouragement to add value. However, it will be industry and markets that determine development.Nevertheless, the Commonwealth is providing money to implement structural adjustment through the forest industry structural adjustment package and industry development programs in each RFA state. Funding is also being provided through the wood and paper industry strategy. Beyond that, we are also focusing on the development of an action agenda, primarily led by industry itself, but in partnership with governments and other stakeholders. That agenda will provide a coordinated and integrated framework of action to promote industry developments.Paragraph 2(c) requires the RFA to apply the precautionary principle within the meaning of section 3.5.1 of the intergovernmental agreement on the environment. Section 3.5.1 defines that precautionary principle. RFAs are being developed with that precautionary principle well in mind. But the proposed inclusion of such a requirement in the bill raises the question of who would decide whether that principle would be applied. Is it to be the action minister, the minister for the environment, either house of parliament or a court on application by an aggrieved party? Paragraph 2(d) of the opposition's amendment requires the RFA to foster community understanding and support for ecologically sustainable forest management and paragraph 2(e) requires the RFA to provide opportunities for public participation in decision making. That promotion is already an integral part of the RFA process and will remain so. The only problem is that there are some elements of the community that will not support ecologically sustainable forest management if such management allows for sustainable harvesting of native forests in any form. Does their lack of support or participation in the process mean that the RFA fails to meet these criteria?I move to the object of establishing a wood and paper industry council. We have already responded as a government to the recommendation of the majority report that a wood and paper industry council be established. We have stated that we support the establishment of an appropriate and representative stakeholder consultative body. Therefore, we are introducing our own amendment to the bill which will establish a Forest Product Advisory Council, and we have provided for its functions and constitution to be set by regula tion. We will determine the content of those regulations in the context of the industry action agenda. First of all, we have to gauge all stakeholders' views as to the most appropriate function and membership of such a body. The opposition's proposed amendment, on the other hand, appears designed to cater to the views of one stakeholder. Could it be that this is an attempt by the opposition to appease the CFMEU in order to quiet that union's trenchant criticism of other elements of its proposed amendments? We will show that the one clear outcome of this proposed amendment will be the creation of an unwieldy, costly Commonwealth funded bureaucracy that is likely to implode under its own inertia or be riven with internal bickering over the proper interpretation of the many legislative provisions that the opposition has set out in its amendment. Therefore, we do not support that object.It is difficult to see how the opposition's proposed objects clause adds anything of substance. It is arguable that the test of whether an RFA `has regard to the objects' of the bill is different to the test of whether it actually provides for the 11 criteria listed in subclause (2) of the objects clause proposed by the opposition. Such a difference can only lead to confusion as to whether an RFA is covered by the bill. That is borne out in advice we have had from the Office of General Counsel, which concludes:The principal concern with the proposed amendment to the definition . . . is that it is not limited to RFAs made after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, it is a condition for an agreement to be regarded as an RFA that the agreement have regard to the objects of the Act. As the objects of the Act were not specified at the time of the making of RFAs that have already been made, it is not possible that those RFAs had regard to the objects of the Act. This is particularly so in respect of the establishment of the Wood and Paper Industry Council as, at the time the RFAs were made, that Council was not in existence and probably not even contemplated. Similarly in respect of specific criteria for assessing whether a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992—even if those specified matters reflect the substance of that Statement—it could be argued that regard was not had to them when the RFAs were made as the specified criteria were not then in existence. Another concern with proposed subclause 2A(2) is that in setting out specific criteria for assessing whether a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992, the provision has substantive effect. The matters specified in that subclause (especially in subparagraphs 2A(2)(a)(i) to (vii)) are quite specific and, particularly in relation to RFAs that have already been made, may not be met by all RFAs. Although the definition of "RFA or Regional Forest Agreement" as altered by this proposed amendment would only require that an agreement have regard to the objects of the Act, an argument could be made that an RFA that does not meet the specified criteria cannot have been made having regard to those criteria.This raises serious doubts as to whether, if the opposition's amendments are adopted, existing RFAs such as the Tasmanian RFA would be recognised by a court as an RFA for the purposes of the act.10:38:007670Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—In respect of the regional forest agreement amendment for the objects of the act, it is disappointing to find that the government has decided not to support objects for an act—objects which go specifically to matters to ensure the regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states are consistent with the national forest policy statement of 1992. It is disappointing to find that this government is not about ensuring that objects are placed in legislation it brings before the parliament. What is also disappointing is its view about objects. It has taken a considerable view in respect of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 in putting extensive objects within that act. But in respect of this Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , it has decided not to put any in.The bill, which provides for a `comprehensive, adequate and reserve system', would seem to beg for objects to provide certainty, consistency and rationality for the process. Having spent some time associated with the industry, I can say that without doubt the people out in those regions would look at objects to give them some direction as to the processes that have been undertaken and been performed by the various parties in coming to an agreement under the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . Having gone to Monto, Eidsvold and through those areas, and to Bundaberg, and spoken about the regional forest agreement in Queensland to various people from the local councils, it is clear to me that if objects were included within the legislation we would be able to explain to people the direction that we wish to take and the processes that are provided for. They would then have some understanding of what the legislation proposes to do and be able to turn to the objects to help them in that process. Without the objects, the bill lacks that wholeness that legislation of today should have.The objects that have been proposed would ensure that those sorts of needs are met and are provided for. They would not only ensure that the RFA process is to provide things such as the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable development, wood production, wood product industries and maximising value added opportunities and the efficient use of wood resources, but would also ensure that there is management of the Australian forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that include tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products. People would then be able to look at those objects and come to the conclusion that the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 has that wholeness the legislation requires.Having also participated in the rally in Queensland and spoken to a number of workers in the process, I can see that you could then use the objects to be able direct them to the bill and say, `These are the objects. This is what the legislation is going to mean.' Those people are very concerned about the industry. They are concerned about their jobs. At the moment in Queensland, a process of the agreement has been gone through to a certain extent where we are awaiting a decision. In the process of getting there, a number of options have been made available to the parties. Those options have also been put out by the AWU and the Regional Forest Society, which have put out a plan which provides for an adequate and representative reserve system. They have also tried to ensure that both the environment and the industry would be looked after and, most particularly, that the jobs in the area would also be looked after. Objects would be able to coalesce all of that and provide that direction. It is disappointing to find that objects such as these cannot be supported.10:43:007671Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments Nos 1 and 7 on sheet 1514:Paragraph 2A(1)(a), after "1992", insert "and the national Competition Principles Agreement 1995".At the end of clause 2A, add: (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Competition Principles Agreement 1995 if it: (a) has accounted for the need to comply with competitive neutrality policy and principles contained in the national Competition Principles Agreement 1995; and (b) has accounted for the need for structural reform of public monopolies as outlined in the National Competition Principles Agreement 1995; and (c) is administered under State legislation subject to review pursuant to the national Competition Principles Agreement 1995.The Australian Democrats have seven amendments to this ALP amendment, as printed on sheet 1514. The first amendment deals with inserting national competition principles into the RFA process. Amendment No. 7 clarifies for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) that a regional forest agreement is consistent with the national competition principles agreement of 1995 according to the explanatory points (a), (b) and (c) on sheet 1514.10:45:007671Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Before I comment on Senator Greig's amendments, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 9 August 1999. Senator Greig, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, the comments that I made with regard to the opposition amendments apply equally to the Democrat amendments to those amendments, and therefore the government will not be supporting them.10:45:007672Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will be supporting these amendments because they inject a concern for the environment, which is missing from this bill, into the objects. I will also be supporting the worthwhile objects that the Labor Party has brought forward. It was interesting to hear Senator Troeth's contribution on the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. She said that, if this set of objects from the Labor Party were to be put into the bill, she did not think the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement would comply. I ask the government: does that mean that the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement does not comply with the national forest policy statement? If she has concerns that the Tasmanian RFA will not meet the objects as laid out in this amendment, could she please be specific about that?During the course of this debate I will be referring primarily to the situation of the forests in Tasmania, from whence I come. I am aware that the minister was in Tasmania recently and I hope she has been there before. Just so that we may understand each other, I ask the minister, for my information, to tell me about her acquaintance with the Tasmanian forests. Has she flown over or been into the most substantial temperate forests in Australia, including the largest tracts of rainforest in temperate Australia? When she says that there is no evidence that logging in Tasmania is not ecologically sustainable, I ask her whether her use of the term `economically sustainable logging' is consistent with her definition of `ecologically sustainable logging'. We have this term `ecologically sustainable logging' which is basic to the approach of all parties here, and I ask her whether all logging in Tasmania is, or will be, ecologically sustainable?10:48:007672Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I have a letter from the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Jim Bacon, in which he says:The RFA specifically provides for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for the purposes of forest conservation. It also ensures long-term ecologically sustainable management of Tasmania's forests and pro vides a framework for the development of competitive and efficient industries.I was interested to hear the minister, Senator Troeth, indicate that the Tasmanian RFA may not be regarded as being valid were the amendments put forward by the opposition carried by the parliament. Obviously, we know that whatever goes through here has to go back to the House of Representatives. Minister, could you please outline to the Senate precisely what part of the opposition's amendments would render the RFAs in Tasmania untenable or invalid?10:50:007672Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Senator Brown, I have been to the Tasmanian forests and I have observed their beauty and their ecological value, not only to Tasmania but also to Australia. But the RFA legislation seeks to provide a balance between a sustainable forest industry and the preservation of ecological objectives—and I am using that in the broadest possible sense of the term. I have also had considerable experience during my life of the forest industry in Victoria, and I am very concerned that, under some actions which would want to be taken by you and perhaps by some members of the opposition, regional jobs would be in jeopardy if this RFA legislation is not adopted in concert with the states. I said in my speech in the second reading debate that this legislation is designed to do what the Commonwealth needs to do, but that state governments have to play their role as well.Senator Harradine, I do not know whether you were in the chamber when I quoted from the Office of General Counsel, which gave the legal opinion on whether existing RFAs would be recognised by a court as an RFA if the opposition amendments are adopted. With the concurrence of the chamber I will read that again for you. The advice from the Office of General Counsel said:The principal concern with the proposed amendment to the definition . . . is that it is not limited to RFAs made after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, it is a condition for an agreement to be regarded as an RFA that the agreement have regard to the objects of the Act. As the objects of the Act were not specified at the time of the making of RFAs that have already been made, it is not possible that those RFAs had regard to the objects of the Act.He goes on to talk about the Wood and Paper Council, which may not concern you as much. He then continues:Another concern with proposed subclause 2A(2) is that in setting out specific criteria for assessing whether a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992, the provision has substantive effect. The matters specified in that subclause (especially in subparagraphs 2A(2)(a)(i) to (vii)) are quite specific and, particularly in relation to RFAs that have already been made, may not be met by all RFAs. Although the definition of "RFA or Regional Forest Agreement" as altered by this proposed amendment would only require that an agreement have regard to the objects of the Act, an argument could be made that an RFA that does not meet the specified criteria cannot have been made having regard to those criteria.That ends his advice. But my comment was that this raises serious doubts whether existing RFAs such as the Tasmanian RFA would be recognised by a court as an RFA for the purposes of the act, if the opposition's amendments are adopted.10:54:007673Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would also like to speak in support of the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Greig. The two amendments that are the question before the chair at the moment seek to add an extra component to the objects which the ALP amendment seeks to insert into the act. I re-emphasise that the purpose of the Democrats' amendments is to add, as part of those objects, that an RFA needs to be consistent not just with the national forest policy statement but also with the National Competition Principles Agreement.The opposition has not spoken to the Democrats' amendments to date, but I am sure that, as part of reinforcing the argument they are going to present in support of our amendments, it is worth quoting some statements made in this chamber by Senator Peter Cook, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology back in 1995, when the whole issue of competition policy reform—and the legislation relating to it—was passing through this chamber. At the time it was with the support of the coalition parties and against the desires of the Australian Democrats.The aim then, as Senator Cook outlined quite forcefully, was to ensure that there was opportunity for greater efficiency in the operation of the Australian economy, for saving taxpayers' money, for creating new jobs and for improving household savings. He talked about the principle of competition policy improving the efficiency of the nation and emphasised that people who tried to oppose these principles were saying to Australian industry, quite clearly, `We do not want a competitive economy and you will have to fight for your markets with one hand tied behind your back.' So it is probably worth emphasising the views of the ALP, even back at that stage, about the importance of ensuring that, in any competitive market, industry should not have to fight with one arm tied behind its back.That was the purpose of the introduction of competition policy principles at that stage. Things have moved on from then, of course, but the Democrats' main concern about competition policy was that it might operate in isolation without appropriate recognition of other social and environmental factors. I think that would be a legitimate complaint if this amendment were standing on its own, but it is an amendment to add to the ALP's objects and it creates one extra requirement on RFAs—in addition to environmental and social objects that are contained within the ALP amendment; I support them in putting those forward—to ensure that the ongoing operation and effectiveness of the industry which is supposedly the whole focus of the RFA process is consistent with the National Competition Principles Agreement.I guess this is an issue of equal treatment. If other industries throughout Australia have to be subject to national competition principles, surely it is appropriate that the forest industry—which is getting this very specific special and long-term legal protection through this legislation and other agreements—should have to meet those basic competition principles as part of its operation. So I urge the Senate to support the Democrats' amendment to add that extra requirement to the objects that the ALP are seeking to put into the RFA act.10:58:007674Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I am responding to Senator Troeth's response to Senator Harradine. I think it is worth doing that at this part of the debate before my colleague Senator Forshaw responds to Senator Greig. I think getting and obtaining legal advice is a bit like making sausages: the advice you get is dependent on what you put into the system. I think we find that with the Australian Government Solicitor's advice with respect to the disallowance mechanisms which the opposition is moving in this legislation. As a clear indication of that, paragraph 10 of the AGS advice refers very clearly to interpretations given by the minister. The minister providing the so-called facts on which the advice is given is none other than Wilson Tuckey. Paragraph 10 of the advice says:At the outset it should be stressed that the operation of the proposed amendments of the definition of RFA or regional forest agreement and a number of other provisions of the bill is not clear. The interpretation that you have suggested is one that is open. However, I think that a court may have difficulty in giving the proposed amendment of the definition of RFA or regional forest agreement that effect, or indeed any effect.So we have here a situation where the minister, Wilson Tuckey, has presented certain facts to the AGS and they have made their determination on the basis of those facts. I think that is probably a hazardous course for lawyers to take, but it seems to have happened here.The fact that it is a hazardous course I think is emphasised by an earlier paragraph in that advice, where the solicitor makes this sort of comment:The bill, if amended as proposed, would then confer on the houses of parliament an unlimited discretion whether to permit the Minister to enter into any particular RFA. In these circumstances, it is likely that the bill would be regarded by the High Court as authorising the giving of preference to one region over another contrary to section 99.Let us go to the first point. The bill, if amended as proposed, does not confer upon the minister unlimited discretion whether to enter into a particular RFA. The bill before amendment and, in fact, the arrangements before we even have a bill or an act are such that the objectives of the national forest policy have always dictated, or are supposed to have dictated, the outcome. They are supposed to have been the platform on which the minister enters into an RFA. That is the case before the legislation and that would be the case after the legislation. That is where the consistency in the system will prevail. That is something that the advisers have not taken into account at all: the relevance of the broader structure of policy, which influenced the previous Labor government and now is supposed to influence—to the extent that it does it is basically a token effort—ministers of the federal government. The discretion is not unlimited. The discretion is in many senses bound by the other parts of the legislation. As I say, there is consistency between that and what has existed before this legislation, which is the national forest policy and agreement between the Commonwealth and the states.Let us put that aside for a moment. The statement says that, were the houses of parliament to exercise a capacity to disallow, that in itself would be regarded by the High Court as authorising the giving of preference to one region over another and as a consequence be contrary to section 99. That statement in itself is so bland and general and is spread so wide that it is almost ridiculous. But if that were the case, if the parliament giving itself the authority to disallow were to lead immediately to a situation where we were authorising action contrary to section 99, then the amendments to the government's native title legislation, the amendments which give the Senate and the House of Representatives the authority to disallow any alternative to the right to negotiate, the amendment to section 43A which gives this parliament in its discretion, exercising as it wishes, the authority to disallow a state based regime alternative to the right to negotiate, also could be determined, on this rationale by these lawyers, as authorising the giving of preference to one region over another contrary to section 99. State after state will bowl up its right to negotiate and we will make an assessment on whatever criteria motivate senators here.You might say, `Well, in respect of section 43A there are certain considerations that a minister needs to take into account.' Those considerations do not go to discrimination between states; they go to the acceptable level of protection for indigenous Australians and others in the alternatives to the right to negotiate process. You have the same thing here in respect of the national forest policy. So it is a very long bow to draw and a very broad and general point that these advisers are making. They may have been misled by a lack of full and complete information from the minister. Without being ungracious to Mr Tuckey, that would not surprise me. But I think it is somewhat over the top for the legal advisers to say that, were houses of parliament to reserve for themselves unlimited discretion whether to permit the minister to enter into any particular RFA, to use their words, the High Court would directly see this as an action authorising or giving a preference. I think that is something that really stretches the law of credibility and the bounds of acceptance.Senator Troeth, I know what you have been given. It is something that Mr Tuckey put out earlier this week to try and derail the process. Can I say to him that this is consistent with his continued acts of irresponsibility in this debate. Can I say to the Australian Government Solicitor that maybe they ought to take a broader view of this. Maybe they ought to go and look at some of the extraneous material that would be quite relevant and also look at some of the policy settings for this, and then compare this with the alternative to the right to negotiate regime in the native title legislation. Perhaps then they could tone down the general and aggressive nature of their advice.11:06:007675Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Can I respond to the government's response to our amendments first, and then deal with the Democrats' proposed amendments. Senator Bolkus has more than adequately dealt with the furphy regarding the potential constitutional invalidity that was raised by the parliamentary secretary. I find it somewhat strange that the proposition has been raised and also the way it has been enunciated by the minister.We know that Minister Tuckey is given to grandiose, rhetorical flourishes but his press release of 22 August, claiming that the Labor Party's amendments were constitutionally invalid, was really way over the top. When you read the Government Solicitor's advice—given the qualifications contained therein and the way in which the propositions were put seeking that advice—you quickly come to the conclusion that the minister has taken a proposition which says, `Here is a potential legal argument,' and has developed that, in his words, into an absolute; that is, that these amendments are constitutionally invalid. The point is that anybody at any time can put forward an argument. The question is whether or not there is a sound basis for that argument, and we believe there certainly is not.Indeed, I find it somewhat ironic that this proposition is advanced when, as Senator Bolkus has pointed out, the whole basis upon which the RFAs have been negotiated stems from an intergovernmental agreement between the states and the Commonwealth under the national forest policy statement, which has been the criterion upon which the federal minister has supposedly—if he is carrying out his job properly—approached consideration of the RFAs. So that has been the basis upon which the state governments have negotiated the RFAs and, indeed—as I indicated earlier—that is the basis upon which the legislation has been brought before this parliament. To then turn around and suggest that somehow a court would find that of itself the objects clause, which refers to the fundamental basis of negotiating those agreements, invalidates the agreements when those agreements must comply with that fundamental basis of the legislation is really a nonsensical and circular proposition.Also—and we will come back to deal with this issue later in respect of the disallowance provisions—there are suggestions that somehow section 99 will come into play because of discrimination between states that may have RFAs and states that do not, or states that have RFAs that have already been already signed off prior to the legislation being passed and those that have ones to come in the future. If that is the government position, if they are seriously putting forward that possible problems with section 99 could exist, then it can only follow that the whole RFA process has a big question mark over it. Why? Because the whole RFA process has recognised that, for instance, areas where an RFA is not agreed on by the end of this year will no longer have export licences for timber products. But, of course, the government do not argue that it is contrary to section 99.Let me turn to some of the other points that were made by the government in respect of our proposed objects clause. The parliamentary secretary says that certain provisions are superfluous because they are covered by the definitions clause. The real point that is being made there is that you actually do recognise that these are criteria for which there should be some regard. So that cannot be an objection as to why they should not be included in an objects clause within the act. The more appropriate place to refer to a national forest policy statement and the criteria contained therein is in the objects clause, right up the front with the legislation where it is there for all to see. It is also argued by the parliamentary secretary that, because the government are proposing a wood and paper industry council to be established by the minister, this is unnecessary. There is even a suggestion that somehow the Labor Party was proposing this for some ulterior motive.I will come back to this later when we deal with the specific proposal as to how such a council would be established. But let me just remind the government that the wood and paper industry council was established by the previous Labor government. It was an integral part of the entire process of the national forest policy statement and also the aftermath of that, as the various state governments, the federal government, industry and other bodies moved towards, first of all, making the assessments and then negotiating RFAs.When the coalition government came to office in 1996, they abolished the wood and paper industry council. Minister Moore abolished it and established an alternative body called the Wood and Paper Industry Forum. That body has met only twice since this government came to office. It is regarded as a joke. Indeed, it was for the very reason that that body was not functioning properly that the government really had no regard for it and the Senate committee unanimously recommended the re-establishment of a wood and paper industry council. The government have now belatedly said, `Minister Tuckey will re-establish it and we do not really need to enshrine it in legislation.' We would have great concerns about any commitments given by Minister Tuckey in respect of the future of such a body if it were not established pursuant to legislation.Further points I wish to turn to are those raised by the Democrats in their amendments. We do not support the Democrats amendments for the following reasons. Firstly, this is the Regional Forest Agreements Bill, and what we are dealing with here is a proposed objects clause that is based on the fundamentals of the legislation—that is, the national forest policy statement. We do not believe that the Democrats' amendments add anything to the objects clause. Further, in our view it is mischievous because the proposition advanced by the Democrats is one they have railed against time and time again. For instance, let me refer to Senator Bartlett's first speech in this parliament. I understand that Senator Bartlett had some responsibility for this area prior to his colleague Senator Greig being elected. On 11 November 1997, Senator Bartlett said:It has to be acknowledged that there has basically been a joint effort by Labor and the coalition in doing so much damage to our nation.I have to interpose here and say that I do not agree with a lot of this but, nevertheless, I will read it. He went on:Both have willingly unleashed the scourge of uncontrolled and heartless market forces with no regard for the human, social or environmental cost. Both have embraced wholesale privatisation and been unparalleled perhaps in the world in promoting the idiocy of the level playing field and deregulated global competition with little regard for human rights or environmental damage. Both have championed GATT, the World Trade Organisation and, on a local level, the national competition policy. I have to say that, if those are the sentiments of Senator Bartlett and the Democrats with respect to competition policy, I find it ludicrous for them to be suggesting that that should be enshrined as a principle in this legislation to which all RFAs must adhere to be valid. The point is that this process is an ongoing one, commencing, as I said, in 1992. It is about transition from an industry based on the production of timber products from native forests and plantation forests to, over time, we hope, one that increasingly relies upon plantations.But the Democrats and, no doubt, Senator Brown want to jump that period of time straightaway. They want to put the industry, which currently relies upon native forests, out of business now. That is what the amendments are basically designed to do—that is, to set the high-jump bar so high that the industry cannot ever hope to jump over it. If you look at the proposals in the amendments, you will see that that is clearly what the Democrats are seeking to do. They are seeking to make it so uneconomic, so financially impossible, that the industry would have to virtually close down overnight.The whole policy, the whole strategy, of the RFAs is designed to promote a balance between the conservation interests on the one hand and the interests of the timber industry and the communities that rely on them on the other, and to manage that transition over time in a sensible, orderly way. We do not deny that the principles of national competition have some relevance. But, equally, we all have to acknowledge that there are adjustment packages arising out of this process, financial assistance and so on, that are being, and will be, provided to the industry and to communities to adjust. If you are going to make the RFAs up-front conditional upon the sorts of principles that you yourself claim have led to such problems and having a huge social and environmental cost, then you are going to do great damage to many people. Frankly, as I said, we believe that these amendments are mischievous and, on that basis, we cannot support them. (Time expired)11:21:007677Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I will speak very briefly as I know others might want to enter the debate. Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman Calvert, can I get some clarification from Senator Troeth. First of all, let me make it very clear that I am supporting the RFAs. There has been a good deal of work done in the state of Tasmania. As an aside, I am rather surprised that the legislation was not dealt with by 30 June, to be quite frank. I had expected it to be dealt with, but it was not.If I understand the parliamentary secretary, she is referring to advice that the government has been given. As I understand it, that advice goes something like this: if the opposition's amendments go through, the legislation requires that regard must be had to the objects of the act. The suggestion is that, because the Tasmanian RFA was made prior to the objects of the act going into the legislation and the RFA therefore did not have regard to the objects of the act, under those circumstances it could be regarded as invalid.There has been some discussion about the adequacy of that advice or the information upon which that advice was based. What I would like to know is: in all of the objects that have been put forward in the opposition's amendment, what precise objects has the Tasmanian RFA ignored? Could we go through the objects of the act suggested by the opposition's amendment, which says:(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it: (a) provides for: (i) the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources; and (ii) the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products; and (iii) the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia; and (iv) the protection of nature conservation values in forests; I have gone through these, and I cannot see one object for which regard has not been given by the Tasmanians. In my view, they have given a great deal of attention to those particular objects, as outlined in the amendments. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the committee as to what regard has not been given to which particular object?11:26:007678Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Firstly, the opinion that I gave on the advice that I had been given meant that, if this amendment is carried, the Tasmanian RFA may be invalid for the purposes of the bill. It is still an RFA. That is the advice that I have been given.With regard to the objects, as specified by Senator Forshaw in his amendments, the Tasmanian RFA would then not have subscribed to the establishment of a wood and paper industry council. Also, in subsection 2, under (iii), the Tasmanian RFA would then not have subscribed to `the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia'. It simply applies to Tasmania.11:27:007678Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I realise we have a number of amendments to go through, so I will not unnecessarily prolong the debate. I think it is appropriate to respond to Senator Forshaw's comments. Firstly, I am very pleased to see him reading my first speech. It was a very good speech, and I encourage all senators to quote it as often as possible.The points he made from the section he quoted were valid then and are valid now. There are two crucial points as to why what I said then was so correct. The first point is that the problem with the focus of the national competition policy when it was brought in was that it was pushed significantly, almost solely, on economic grounds without consideration for the human rights, environmental or social aspects—I mentioned these in the speech that Senator Forshaw quoted—whereas this amendment has been added to the objects that the ALP is proposing. It is a credit to the ALP that their amendments contain a range of matters other than economic principles. We are not putting forward competition policy in isolation and subverting the environment and everything beneath that, which was one of the major concerns the Democrats had with the national competition policy when it was first established.The other important point, even leaving that aside for one minute, is the issue of consistency. Why should the timber industry be treated differently from other industries throughout Australia that have to be subjected to those principles? In a way, the comments of Senator Forshaw highlighted the ongoing problem that the Democrats have continually tried to emphasise over many years in relation to logging in our native forests, which is that it is not economic. It is able to be sustained only because of massive public subsidies which pay for the clear-felling.What is really being said by the ALP is that they believe competition principles and economic measures should not be applied because, as Senator Forshaw said, this would close the industry overnight. I do not know whether it would or not, but if it did it would simply highlight how grossly uneconomic it actually is in the way it currently operates. Part of the original purpose of RFAs and one of the original aims—apart from protecting the environment—was to enable an ongoing economically viable timber industry.Despite the claims of Senator Forshaw and others—and I am sure they will be repeated persistently throughout this debate, so I will just respond to them once now and try to refrain from countering them every time they are raised—the Democrats are not about trying to close down the timber industry overnight; we are about making it economically sustainable, and it is completely unsustainable economically if we continue to rely on logging and clear-felling our native forests. It is an economic question as well as an environmental question. The amount of public subsidy that has continued to be provided—and will continue to have to be provided—to the timber industry in relation to logging our native forests highlights why it is so crazy and why we need to move away from that.In his comments, Senator Forshaw said that part of the RFA process is to make a `transition, we hope, which moves towards plantations.' We need to do more than hope; we have to ensure that we have as fast as possible a transition to plantations, because that is part of what it is all about. That is why—as he also said in his speech—the whole RFA process has a big question mark over it. The reason it has a big question mark over it is because, clearly, amongst a number of those that have been signed already—and certainly in terms of what the timber board in my own state of Queensland is pressing—they do not want to move into plantations; they want to maintain their hold on what are very fast dwindling areas of native forests in south-east Queensland, which goes against why we set down this path.It is worth emphasising again—and I will not restate this every time—that the fact that the whole process has a huge question mark over it highlights why this bill should, ideally, be thrown out altogether and why that is the Democrats' preferred option. Despite the fact that we are trying to cooperate constructively in putting forward amendments and considering amendments that others are putting forward to make the bill less bad than it is, the Democrats' consideration of those amendments throughout this committee stage should not be mistaken for support in any way for this legislation.I take the opportunity again to emphasise that, because the whole RFA process has a big question mark over it—as others have acknowledged—we should ideally be throwing this bill out altogether. Unfortunately, the ALP have made it clear that that is not going to occur—they will vote for it—so we are forced to consider amending it. That is what the Democrat amendment is about. We will support the ALP's amendment as one way of creating some improvement, but we believe our amendments in relation to the timber industry having to meet the same economic requirements as other industries are important for consistency and transparency so that people can be aware of what subsidies are being provided. Senator Forshaw acknowledges that having to meet basic economic and competition requirements would have a negative impact on the industry and this highlights the economic inefficiency and the public subsidies that are already provided.Whilst on face value it may perhaps appear that the amendment moved by Senator Greig is a mischievous amendment—which Senator Forshaw suggested—it is most definitely not. We believe that, because it has added to the very good objects that the ALP put forward and does not leave open the risks that are otherwise presented by competition policy and because it puts the industry into the same operation as other industries in Australia, it is one that should be supported. We are disappointed that the ALP are not willing to do that at this time.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendments Nos 1 and 7 on sheet 1514 be agreed to.11:38:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)10Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Lees, M. H.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.50Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Herron, J.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.11:42:007680Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments Nos 2 through 6 on sheet 1514:(2) Amendment (R1), paragraph 2A(1)(b), omit "Wood and Paper Industry Council", substitute "RFA Forest Management Council".(3) Amendment (R1), subparagraph 2A(2)(a)(ii), omit "includes", substitute "primarily includes conservation but also may include".(4) Amendment (R1), subparagraph 2A(2)(a)(v), after "heritage", insert ", ecological".(5) Amendment (R1), at the end of paragraph 2A(2)(a), add: (viii) market based pricing, full cost recovery, a fair return on capital and an adequate return to the community for the use of a public resource;(6) Amendment (R1), at the end of paragraph 2A(2)(b), add "whose primary purpose is conservation".The Australian Labor Party are proposing to set up what is a very select industry council that deals with only one part of what forests are about. They have ignored tourism, environmental values, water catchment and recreational users. They are proposing to set up an industry council that the unions will accept—a council that will be dedicated to finding more ways to sell woodchips or to put in pulpmills.We have a series of amendments to the ALP amendments to try to make the council more balanced and to give the council responsibilities to look at ecologically sustainable forest management and so on. We will go through each of our changes in detail.Democrat amendment (2) seeks to change the name of the council to better reflect what should be a rounded role. Democrat amendment (3) will include the notion of conservation as a primary goal of that council. Democrat amendment (4) seeks to put ecological values into the definition with those social values. Democrat amendment (5) is based around market pricing, on which we have spoken in relation to competition policy and so on. Finally, Democrat (6) would add the wording `whose primary purpose is conservation' to the ALP amendment and also add `relevant international agreements'. We want to specifically say that these are to be consistent with international agreements such as the biodiversity convention, migratory bird agreements, RAMSAR wetlands, and so on.11:46:007680Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government maintains that the proposal, in respect of which we will be putting forward an amendment, still provides by far the best balance of a management body. Therefore, we will not be supporting the Democrat amendments.11:46:007680Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. I think I covered nearly all the issues in earlier remarks when we debated Democrat amendments (1) and (7) with respect to the national competition principles agreement. Some of the issues, for instance amendment (5), relate to that and also my opening remarks with regard to the opposition's own amendment to insert an objects clause.Let me deal with a couple of things. Firstly, in regard to amendment (2), we do not support the proposal to change the name of the Wood and Paper Industry Council to the RFA forest management council. Indeed, as I outlined earlier, what we are seeking to do is establish a wood and paper industry council whose task—as it was previously, and as acknowledged by the Senate committee—is to look at issues; promote such things as value-adding and downstream processing; endeavour to make the forestry industry a more profitable and economic industry; and deal with issues such as how we can remove the trade imbalance that exists. That is the purpose of the Wood and Paper Industry Council. That is the way it was first established under the previous Labor government. We see it being established again by virtue of this legislation. It is not a body that would manage RFAs. It is not intended to be that. It was never intended to do that. The Democrats might wish that it took on that role, but it is not its role and function.Obviously, part of its deliberations and work would clearly have regard to how RFAs are progressing in the context of, as we said, the whole process of enhancing and developing a sustainable, viable timber industry in this country into the future as we also balance out all those other considerations. So we cannot agree to that proposal. Later, when we come to the substantive amendments prepared by the opposition as to the structure of the Wood and Paper Industry Council, we will deal in more detail with it. But they are our reasons for opposing this amendment.I have already addressed the other amendments, but I repeat: what we have proposed here is an objects clause which follows word for word the national goals of the national forest policy statement. We believe that we have covered all of the relevant issues there and that the wording is appropriate for an objects clause. We do not believe that the Democrat amendments really add anything more substantive to our proposal. Accordingly, we cannot support them.11:51:007681Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Of course there is room for both but what we are going to get as a result of this committee deliberation is the usual one-sided outcome whereby the loggers get representation on a wood and paper industry council. If you look a little further down the bill, you will see that the government wants us to leave that to them to determine. They will bring in regulations at some time in the future and set it up—GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—So we get a balance.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Troeth is saying, `So we get a balance,' but we have Senator Greig moving to give some balance here by bringing in the conservation interest, which the majority of Australians want to see, against the destructive woodchipping interests which predominate in this situation. Senator Troeth is going to oppose that. So much for her definition of balance. It is totally skewed against the interests of the majority of Australians, not least young Australians. That is going to be incorporated into a wood and paper industry council, which the government originally opposed anyway. It is a response to the Labor Party's efforts. Senator Murphy from Tasmania, who is not here today because he has other parliamentary business, has been very keen on this as a means of trying to get not just some balance but some review of the way in which the woodchip corporations have skewed the whole industry—shedding jobs and making it a profitable rip-off for them. No wonder the industry has such a bad name and no wonder the industry has left nobody feeling secure at all about the forests.No doubt, the wood and paper industry council which the government wants to set up is simply going to leave in the clutches of its friends in the woodchip industry—friends who put hundreds of thousands of dollars a year into its electoral coffers—the power and persuasion on a totally skewed council. It is not about balance at all. Senator Greig, on behalf of the Democrats, has moved to try to redress that imbalance by having heritage and environmental values brought into the terms of reference for this council and to ensure that environmental representatives are on the council. You would expect that, on its record, the Labor Party is not going to support that because it does want to see this council representing the lost interests of the workers. But the government is not even going to support that because it is a servant of a few big woodchip industries based in the capital cities, the executives of which have probably never been into a native forest in their lives.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Why do you imagine you are the only one who ever has?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Troeth, I am going to ask you—you dismissed my earlier question—about your knowledge of the Tasmanian forests. You have overstated, I think, that you have an acquaintance with the forests. I am going to ask you: which forests and where? We will see how great your acquaintance is and then we can debate the basis of that acquaintance and the impact that this legislation is going to have over the next 20 years—devastation of those very forests.One thing which this does bring to mind is the term `ecologically sustainable', if Senator Greig does not mind me intervening to push the parliamentary secretary on this because it is pertinent to the good terms of reference he has brought forward. When I asked the parliamentary secretary what she meant by ecologically sustainable, she ducked that question. What I am really trying to get at is: is her definition of `ecologically sustainable' commensurate with `economically sustainable', the woodchippers' viewpoint? It is not good enough to say that you will have a sense of balance, as Senator Troeth might want to do. What we need to know is: does ecologically sustainable mean what it says? Does ecologically sustainable mean sustenance of the ecological systems of forests?Senator Troeth said that I have no evidence that this was not being done in Tasmania. During the course of these committee discussions, I will give her ample evidence that ecological sustainability has been thrown out the window since the woodchip industry came to Tasmania, shedding 5,000 jobs, closing over 100 small sawmills, but reaching its cancerous impact into the forest with devastating effects. I will be interested to see how Senator Troeth defends her use of the term `ecologically sustainable'. It is going to be very helpful to this committee in what is going to be a rigorous analysis of the situation if Senator Troeth can give an exact definition of what ecologically sustainable means, and if she can say that that is commensurate or leaves room for her competing definition of `economically sustainable', the woodchippers preferred phrase. I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary a series of questions and I expect she is going to respond.11:56:007682Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I do not know what more the government can do to illustrate the fact that we want an ecologically sustainable system by using the words in the bill as they are before me. I refer you to the general outline in the explanatory memorandum to the bill which says that:Completion of an RFA for a region will:. ensure the long-term protection of environmental and heritage values through the establishment and management of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system; and. provide the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable native forest products industry. Do those words mean anything to you as they are printed in the explanatory memorandum?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Troeth, please address your remarks through the chair.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Certainly, Madam Temporary Chairman. Through you, I suggest to Senator Brown that, as those words are printed in the explanatory memorandum, that is what they mean. I will not delay the committee with an outline of my life history, but I would like you to note that on many visits to Tasmania I have visited forest regions. Particularly, I have taken a trip from Triabunna through to Port Arthur, through the south-east region, where I did admire the beauty of the forests. But what Tasmania needs is jobs. That is what the successful completion of this legislation will do.Senator Brown talks about balance. You cannot possibly have balance without the proper consideration of all value systems. That requires the consideration and hopefully the implementation of economic value systems as well as environmental value systems. That is exactly what this legislation is designed to do.11:59:007682Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I assure the chamber that I will deal with these crocodile tears about jobs later. The disease that produces those crocodile tears has now infected Senator Troeth. Since the regional forest agreement was signed by Prime Minister Howard the year before last, the promise of jobs has been totally thrown out the window. Over 400 jobs have been shed by the big woodchippers and the Tasmanian government—the Bacon Labor government—following on the heels of the Liberal government which signed the agreement. I will be asking Senator Troeth, case by case, how she explains the loss of these jobs since the regional forest agreement was signed, as it was put in place to substantiate jobs. Senator Troeth can get ready for that.This legislation is built on two lies. The first is that it was there for jobs. Patently it was not. Where RFAs have been signed, there has been a process of job shedding—including cardholding members of the Forest Protection Society and the CFMEU. There have been no protests by Senator Troeth. She has not come down to object to it. I do not think she has been to see any woodchip corporation about that. It is easy to get up in here and abuse the hardship of the workers in the industry by touting jobs when, in fact, they are losing their jobs under the government's prescription.I am not prepared to allow the other lie about maintaining environmental values to go unchallenged in this place. I would be letting down those people—and they are the majority—who can patently see that clear-fell logging in our forests is destructive. It is not ecologically sustainable. Those who use those terms in this process are not deceiving themselves, because they know what the process is: they are engaged in a fraudulent use of terminology against the interests of the majority of Australians.Senator Troeth, if you look at the picture in my hand you will see the Tarkine Wilderness. Madam Temporary Chairman, if you look at the picture, you will see a hillside of the rainforest in the Tarkine Wilderness in Tasmania aflame, right across from one side to the other. In the centre is a little white streak which is a helicopter. That is dropping off hundreds of incendiaries, ping-pong balls full of incendiaries, which explode into fire when they hit the ground. What was there at the start of this decade was centuries of ancient, intact, sustained ecosystem. What has happened is that the forest has been cut down.Under the direction of the woodchip industry, Forestry Tasmania has brought a helicopter across. It has dropped napalm-like incendiaries—the whole mountainside is aflame—and that is to kill any remaining semblance of rainforest: the cotyledons, the little shoots that might come up, the root systems underneath. Any remnant wildlife is destroyed, including the birdlife. What is more, when this process was finished, 1080 poison was placed in that region, as is usual under this regional forest agreement process, to deliberately poison and kill any wildlife that wanders in from the remnant forest to that side to graze on the genetically manipulated eucalypts that are then put into that area for a quick buck further down the line by North Forest Pro ducts on this occasion—the most voracious destroyer of forests in the Southern Hemisphere. I ask you, Senator Troeth: having viewed that picture, do you maintain that that is ecologically sustainable?12:04:007683Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I will make a few further comments so that the Australian Democrats and other senators fully understand our opposition to their amendments, particularly amendments Nos 3 and 4. The objects clause that we have drafted follows, word for word, the national goals of the national forest policy statement. Amendment No. 3 seeks to insert some additional words into our amendment. Paragraph (2)(a)(ii) of our amendment reads:the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products . . . That is a straight translation of the words from the national forest policy statement. Whilst on the surface a reference to conservation may not be objectionable, the point we are making is that we believe the objects clause should follow the wording of the goals of the national forest policy statement. We do not think it should be tampered with by adding a word here or taking a word out somewhere else and replacing it with another reference that the Democrats or the chamber think might be more appropriate. This is a statement that was agreed to by the state and federal governments and we believe it is important to ensure accuracy in reflecting what was in that statement.Similarly, in proposed amendment No. 4 moved by the Democrats, where they seek to insert the word `ecological' after the word `heritage' in our proposed amendment, our words are taken directly from the national forest policy statement. Those words, as we have reflected them, read:conservation of the full range of values that forests can provide for current and future generations, including biological diversity and heritage, indigenous and other cultural values . . . It needs to be clearly understood by the Democrats and the chamber that the objection is not directly to the phrases or the words that they have put forward; rather, it is based on the principle of ensuring that we accurately reflect what was included within the 11 goals of the national forest policy statement.I might add that the concepts that the Democrats are referring to in these particular amendments, namely, the use of the words `conservation' and `ecological', are picked up elsewhere in the objects in any event. On that basis, we do not really believe that we should start tampering with the words that were written down in those 11 national goals of the national forest policy statement. If we are going to have an objects clause as we say there should be and if that objects clause is to ensure that this legislation is based on the national forest policy statement—as the government itself says—then it is important that we accurately reflect the wording that was in that statement.12:08:007684Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I would like to respond very briefly to some of Senator Brown's statements. I would also like to ask if these two pieces of paper which have been kindly passed on to me by Senator Calvert could be incorporated in Hansard or tabled. I will just speak briefly to them and then I am happy to do with them whatever the Senate decides.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Could you pass copies to Senator Forshaw and other senators so that they can have a look at them while you are making your comments?GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Yes, certainly. The two charts briefly detail the fact that, unlike the image that Senator Brown has portrayed, there is an enormous part of Tasmania which, incrementally over the last 20 years, has become part of the national parks system and even in this last year or two is already part of the RFA reserve system. Unlike the image that he would give, of most of Tasmania being ablaze, the fact is that Tasmania as a state has an enormous part of its land mass already locked up for those environmental objectives that he wishes to achieve.I cannot let the moment pass without pointing out that in the last 20 years so much investment by any industry has been scared away from Tasmania by the activities of Senator Brown and his cohort. It literally scares off investment from his state. Is it any wonder that investment and jobs are departing his state at a rapid rate, when investment companies and other people who wish to invest money in Tasmania that would provide regional jobs simply do not have the incentive to do so, because of Senator Brown's activities?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is: is leave granted for the documents produced by Senator Troeth to be incorporated in Hansard , subject to Hansard being able to reproduce them? There being no objection, it is so ordered.The documents read as follows—12:10:007687Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I will also seek leave from the chamber to incorporate the picture that I held up a little while ago of the Tarkine wilderness, if Hansard can reproduce it. Senators may remember that I circulated that some months ago. If senators wish, I will circulate copies of that in a little while and then maybe the matter can be determined.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can seek leave at that time, when they have been circulated, Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you. Firstly, I want to have the government answer questions when they are put in committee. There is no point in having a committee process if we have the government unable or unwilling to answer very basic questions on this matter.We come to this heartland matter, which is involved in the question of whether we should support the amendments brought forward by Senator Greig and the minister's own words that the regional forest agreements involved ecologically sustainable logging. I asked the minister quite explicitly if that meant that the ecosystems are sustained, where you have a cut down, firebomb and poison regime as happens with clear-felling in Tasmania's forests. Can the minister assure the chamber that those ecosystems are sustained when that triple process of cut down, firebomb and poison takes place in a wild forest, for example, in the case I showed, the rainforests of the Tarkine wilderness?12:13:007687Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I simply respond to Senator Brown by saying that this process is a regional process. It is considered as a region, not in specific places such as Senator Brown has shown us in his photograph. On a regional basis, it is an ecologically sustainable process.12:13:007687Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I think Senator Troeth is the determined regionalist here, in that she is avoiding the core question. She, not I, has referred to logging under the RFA system as `ecologically sustainable'. We are not going to get very far here, because the government representative is simply not going to answer this question. If an honest answer were to be given to the question, we would then have the lie given to the abuse of the term `ecologically sustainable' in a process which is utterly ecologically destructive. The parliamentary secretary is, like all of us, part of nature's creativity, and we only have to imagine how we would go if we were in the path of a firebombing process, let alone the logging process before it and the poisoning process afterwards, to recognise that ecosystems are wrecked by this logging.Yet I hear the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Bacon, and the Deputy Premier, Mr Lennon, proceeding with this utter falsehood all the time. The whole concept of ecological sustainability when it comes to the logging of wild forests from Western Australia to Queensland is a lie, but it is presented time and time again, not because it could or should be otherwise handled but because there is determined dishonesty involved in it. I think that the purveyors of this dishonesty should be honest and face up to the reality that they are involved in the destruction of ecosystems, wildlife, nesting sites, river systems, water catchments and understorey, let alone these wondrous ancient forests themselves, and stop trying to kid us that they are doing something that they are not.The public can see through this. That is why in Western Australia, for example, where recent events have led to heightened public awareness, Minister Wilson Tuckey and other representatives of the woodchip industry have been unable to wind back public concern. The opinion polls have gone in the other direction. It used to be that 70 per cent of people opposed the destruction of what is left of Australia's forest domain, then it was 80 per cent, and a recent opinion poll in Western Australia showed 89 per cent. We have the government saying, `We have had to wind that back a bit.' Richard Court had to respond, because of dissension amongst those people in the government's own ranks who are no longer prepared to live this lie.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Ask the timber workers.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—What we have to say to the timber workers in Tasmania relates to the promise of this legislation—and I will keep coming back to this. I am very happy to take you on, Senator Troeth, on the jobs issue, not on some speculative basis but on the reality.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—How many jobs have you created in Tasmania?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And Senator Calvert behind you knows this: the regional forest agreement, which gave the loggers lay down misere in Tasmania, was to secure jobs, but it has led to hundreds of people being put out of work by you, by this government, through this process which simply said to the board rooms in Melbourne and Sydney and Tokyo, `You're in control; they are interested in downsizing, get rid of the workers and you will increase your profit line. We are moving out; we are vacating our responsibilities.' That is what this legislation is about.Let me come back to this: our debate here is based on the fundamental lie that ecological sustainability has been brought to the forest. When you have a political debate based on a lie, nobody is going to rely on the outcome. Nor can those people who have the outcome of this debate and this legislation foisted on them be expected to accept that outcome. What is being purveyed here is totally dishonest.The minister said that she had been in Tasmania and had gone from Triabunna to Arthur Peninsula during that visit. One has to ask: was that in an empty log truck going from the Triabunna woodchip mill, the first woodchip mill in Tasmania, back into the magnificent spectacle of the Arthur Peninsula, which depends on tourism for its jobs and which is now targeted by this government and this parliamentary secretary and this legislation? Did the minister go to the prominent Mount Koonya, which is the backdrop for all the tourists going to that region and which was protected as a deferred forest but is now the target of the woodchippers under this legislation—against the wishes of the locals who know that, besides the scenic amenity and the job prospects that come out of the delight of that area and its natural backdrop, their water catchments are going to be sullied and their environment is going to be invaded by the procession of log trucks, which goes into the hundreds of thousands each year across Tasmania, and the noise and squalor that come with it?If the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, was in that region, I ask her whether she looked at the other side of the equation. Did she get together with the locals who do not want those forests cut down? Did she go to Mount Koonya? Did she have a look at the impact on water catchments? Did she get an assessment of the destruction of wildlife in that region? Did she speak to tourist operators whose jobs and livelihoods depend on keeping places like Mount Koonya intact? Finally, did she go to see the log truck drivers who used to drive to the Triabunna mill but who were thrown out of their jobs by North Broken Hill, the woodchipper, while the Labor and Liberal parties of the day sat on their hands? I had the drivers come to my office in Tasmania and say, `What do we do here? They assured the jobs, we've got the contracts, now we are going to the wall. We are going to have our houses and other property sold over our heads. We lose everything because the company which said, "We need your services to bring logs to this woodchip mill" has now said that they don't want our services. We have invested $¼ million in a log truck and we have those repayments and suddenly we have no business.'What did they do? I advised them to drive their log trucks in front of Parliament House like the woodchip industry does so readily in abusing, I think, the industry and the feelings of these workers who think that if they go along with the woodchip industry they will have their jobs secured. History now shows that repeatedly that is not the case. The big corporations, who are hand in hand with the parliamentary secretary's party, are interested in getting rid of jobs. That is their profit line. They are not interested in either the forests or the wellbeing of the workers. They might be funding the Forest Protection Society to get out and do their jobs, but I will get to this a little later because we will get more specially into the jobs arena. I am just responding to Senator Troeth's diversion. Forest Protection Society cardholders were sacked in recent weeks, after all the devotion they have given to a system which was supposed to keep their jobs.I ask the parliamentary secretary again: did you go and see the people in the tourist industry who oppose the regional forest agreements? Did you express concern about their jobs when you were on the Arthur Peninsula? Did you go to Mount Koonya or the townships which depend on tourism there? And did you get a feeling about the other side of the story when you were in Tasmania?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Greig be agreed to.12:22:007689Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I wonder if the minister is going to respond to the very important questions I just put to her—or is she unable to?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The minister did not respond and therefore I did not call her.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I thought that may have been because she was diverted or was still thinking. I think the opportunity should be given, because I would like to see her on her feet and answering. I hope we are not going to have a process here where very important questions are going to be put to the government, which has totally put itself behind this legislation, and it is simply unable to answer. That is not what a Senate committee system is about. A Senate committee system is to get answers from those people bringing forward legislation which are germane to senators then making up their minds about amendments. We have an amendment from Democrat Senator Greig at the moment which wants to extend the terms of reference of a taxpayer funded council—which is going to be set up at the end of this process if the government has its way but which seems to give representation to the loggers but none to the environmentalists. I think that representation would be fair enough. I think the public would want to see the environmental interest there and would welcome this amendment. Senator Troeth has entered into the debate. I have given her some questions, including very simple ones about her own itinerary in Tasmania. I would expect she would be able to inform the committee and, if she is going to default on that, I think the whole process here is going to be greatly devalued.12:24:007689Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I do respond to questions that I consider important. I consider Senator Brown's questions of me entirely rhetorical. I do not propose to deliver my itinerary of any visit to Tasmania. Suffice it to say that I consult with people regularly throughout regional Australia in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Formerly that portfolio was known as the ministry for primary industry, and industry is what we are on about here—the future of the timber industry, the future of the tourism industry and the future of all industries in regional Australia. That is what this legislation is setting out to do: to ensure that all of those voices are heard before, during and after the passage of this legislation to ensure that all of those interests are covered. I consider that my prime responsibility is to listen to those people and to make my contribution to government legislation.Senator Brown, as I indicated before, through the existence of his party, has driven investment and jobs away from his own state. All Tasmanian senators, with the possible exception of him, would sincerely regret that. As an Australian senator I regret that. It is because we do not wish to see his intimidation and his tactics used in other states that we have set out this comprehensive system of dealing with the forests. That is why I totally reject any of Senator Brown's insinuations. I will answer questions that I consider important. I do not consider Senator Brown's questions to be important.12:26:007689Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I thank Senator Troeth for that, because she has at least indicated that she has been in discussions with the tourism industry—and I will come back to that in a moment. Firstly, I will respond—because I am happy to respond to her inherent questions—to the comment about jobs in Tasmania. Let us look at the Franklin River scheme, which she and her government wanted to push in Tasmania. It would have led to a sum total of 32 jobs maximum now, had it gone ahead, but it would have been an enormous financial burden on the state, which in turn leads to job shedding.What Senator Calvert, who is sitting behind Senator Troeth, can tell her is that the one town that is going ahead on the west coast does not depend on logging, does not depend on dam building and certainly does not depend on mining—that is, Strahan. That is the centre of investment and job creation on the west coast, because the Greens and the community in Tasmania fought against a muddle-headed and wrong process which served the interests of a very small sector of the heavy industry component of Tasmanian manufacturing back in the early 1980s—an industry which has since serially failed.What we are seeing here is more of that. It is 1982 in 1999, when this legislation is meant to lock in the interests of woodchip industries—which are based outside Tasmania, which have more than 90 per cent of their shareholders outside the state and which export the jobs to the mainland and to Japan. I will defend the Greens as having the only philosophy of a clean green producing state based on service industries, on tourism and on clean green agriculture from winegrowing, cheese production and so on in Tasmania.What we have now is a very competitive situation as far as forests are concerned. There are some 18,000 jobs based in the service industries and tourism in Tasmania which the Greens support, which the Greens have helped build up and which are increasing in numbers. Over 3,000 of those jobs are dependent on the beauty of the forests—which Senator Troeth has acknowledged—and those jobs are growing in number.The competitive woodchip industry wants to knock those forests down—I referred to Mount Koonya earlier as a sterling example, which Senator Troeth would have seen, even if she did not recognise it in her travelling to Tasmania—and the destruction of that amenity would be a direct inhibition to job growth and investment in tourism and service industries in Tasmania. The industry will tell you that. If Senator Troeth has truly spoken to them, she will know that, even though she might not want to tell this committee.This legislation, which was to promise jobs in the forest industry, has failed. Hundreds of jobs have been shed since it was signed. So we have got an industry which is cutting more forest but because it is automating is shedding jobs, ranged up against an industry which is putting on jobs, and good quality jobs, and is involved in long-term local investment, and which will have its opportunity lost if the woodchippers have their way. You cannot have this both ways. There is a failure of understanding of this dynamic which infects the big parties. I think Labor at the federal level is a mile ahead of the government in this respect. Unfortunately, the Bacon Labor government in Tasmania is miles behind. It is even worse at state level than the Liberals here when it comes to recognising this, because it wanted last year to knock down even more forest than the Liberals.The fundamental question that comes out of all of this is to ask Senator Troeth, who says she is concerned about regional jobs, including tourism, which tourist entities she spoke to on that visit to south-east Tasmania. Would Senator Troeth be good enough to give the committee any detail about any person she met in the tourist industry, or any representative of the tourist industry that she met, in that visit to a very job creating industry in an important part of the spectrum in Tasmania, which is the Triabunna and Port Arthur area?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Greig be agreed to.12:31:007690Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I think this is going to become part of a pretty sad litany of defaults by Senator Troeth. I have to say that if a representative minister—this is in fact the role she is taking on this very important legislation—cannot even answer a question about whom she spoke to in the tourism industry, one is left to assume she spoke to no-one. That is the fact of the matter. She did not contact the tourism industry. She did not contact those people whose jobs are likely to be lost because of her actions through this legislation. You see, when you do not do that, you do not have the balance that Senator Troeth talks about. You are not informed. You are not competent to be working in the best interests of the wider community, including in particular those people who want jobs, let alone those people who want the environment protected. It is a pretty sad situation we have here as far as Senator Troeth and this government are concerned. She has Senator Calvert sitting behind her, and he has got no answer to this either.The reality is that this is the wrong way for Tasmania to be treated and similarly the wrong way for the other states, from Western Australia through to south-east Queensland, to be treated. It is also the wrong way for a committee in the Senate dealing with an important matter like this to be treated by the government representative.Amendments not agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The question is that opposition amendments R1 and 2 on sheet 1290 revised 2 be agreed to.12:38:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)34Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.30Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. 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.Conroy, S. Alston, R. K. R.Cook, P. F. S. Newman, J. M.Denman, K. J. Heffernan, W.Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M.Murphy, S. M. Parer, W. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.12:40:007691Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Australian Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet 1265:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 7 and 8), omit the definition of comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system , substitute: comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system , in relation to an RFA, means a dedicated reserve system that meets: (a) the biodiversity criteria; and (b) the old-growth forest criteria; and (c) the wilderness criteria; of the nationally agreed criteria for the establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for forests in Australia (the JANIS criteria), published in January 1997 by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council/Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee.This is to deal with the definition of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, `comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve' being the words which lead to it being called the CARR system. The definition that we have in this very thin document—the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 —says:comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system , in relation to an RFA— a regional forest agreement—has the same meaning as in the RFA.In other words, we as a parliament are to go and look at a document signed outside the parliament—unless amendments coming further down the line get through in this place—to find out what the definition of `comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system' is. It is left to a Premier—it could be Mr Kennett in Victoria, Mr Court in Western Australia or Mr Bacon in Tasmania; they are all of similar mind when it comes to the destruction of forests—to work out with the Prime Minister what the definition will be.Presumably—and I think in reality—there will be different definitions in different regional forest agreements. That is a very unsatisfactory situation for us to have. There should be the same definition across the country. Moreover, it should not be left to the parliament to put into legislation a definition which is not a production of this parliament or this committee but has been left to politicians signing documents somewhere else outside our jurisdiction. We have a responsibility to say exactly what is meant by `a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system' and I have moved to do that. In this amendment I propose that we omit the failed definition that the government has put and have these words instead: comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system , in relation to an RFA,means a dedicated reserve system that meets: (a) the biodiversity criteria; and (b) the old-growth forest criteria; and (c) the wilderness criteria; of the nationally agreed criteria for the establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for forests in Australia (the JANIS criteria),—there are other technical words which we can put in there for completeness—published in January 1997 by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council/Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee.That at least gives us a clear anchor on what is meant by `comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system', which is fundamental to this legislation.Senator Troeth has said that she is representing the very ministry that was on that council that devised this definition, so I think she should have very little difficulty in supporting this amendment. In other words, it is her ministerially agreed amendment that we are using. It is not a Green derivation. It is a government one and, for that matter, a definition agreed by all state governments and the New Zealand government. Let us not leave it to changes or variations to that definition which might be in regional forest agreements. Let us bring it up into this legislation where all citizens and all people who are involved in the outcome of this legislation will know what it means.Progress reported.Matters of Public Interest769210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I now call upon matters of public interest.769212:45:007692Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—When Judie Stephens's grandson Jackson was three months old, he sustained a very serious head injury in a motor vehicle accident that killed both of his parents. The current expenditure for Jackson's 24-hour care, rehabilitation, active observation and equipment is between $3,000 and $4,500 per week. That is why I want to draw to the attention of this chamber today the practical benefits of structured settlements. Generally speaking, common law practice provides that compensation in cases of serious injury can be awarded either as a tax-free lump sum or as periodic payments subject to income tax. The tax-free nature of the lump sum payment makes it the preferred option for many claimants, but it requires responsible and complex management if it is to provide for the long-term care of the disabled party. Structured settlements, on the other hand, provide a secure income for the beneficiary for life—an income that can pay for ongoing medical care while promoting the independence of the claimant. It is my firm conviction that legislation that enables seriously disabled accident victims to access tax-free structured settlements would be a responsible step forward for the management of disability care. The structured settlement proposal is designed to benefit both accident victims and all taxpaying Australians. Structured settlements would be available to any seriously injured individual who is entitled to common law compensation payouts. Such settlements are the way of paying common law compensation periodically. So, instead of a single lump sum, claimants can receive a smaller up-front lump sum payment combined with ongoing tax-free periodic payments for the rest of their life. This arrangement would offer seriously injured people greater long-term financial security and would reduce the risk of seriously injured accident victims becoming reliant on government welfare.Structured settlements are supported by international precedent, with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada undertaking the necessary taxation reform to introduce tax-free structured components of compensation awards. Wherever common law damages for personal injury are paid, a structured settlement can be used. It includes motor vehicle accidents, work injuries, medical malpractice and public liability but excludes statutory periodic payments. During the settlement negotiation process, either party can suggest a structured settlement and, if both parties agree, the case can be settled on this basis.The design of each structure will depend on the individual needs of the injured party. However, overseas experience indicates that usually about one-third of the compensation is paid to the claimant as an up-front lump sum and the rest is then used by the defendant insurer to purchase an annuity for the injured person. The annuity funds the periodic payments, which are normally payable for the life of the injured person, and they are indexed to inflation. There is usually a minimum guarantee period, and if a claimant dies before the expiration of that period the payments will continue to be made to the claimant's estate or to the nominated beneficiary. After the defendant insurer purchases the annuity, it obtains a full release from liability and can close its file. The annuity is owned by the insured person, who has an ongoing relationship with the provider. As previously stated, tax-free structured settlements have been adopted in the USA, the United Kingdom and Canada. The relevant compensation and taxation laws in Australia are nearly identical to those in the United Kingdom, making the English model the most appropriate for Australia to adopt.The sad reality is that lump sum payments are too frequently an inadequate form of compensation. Those in receipt of lump sum payments are often at the mercy of ill-informed or unscrupulous carers, and poor investment choices often result. Large sums of money are difficult to handle and a false sense of wealth and security can lead to a rapidly diminishing resource. Lump sum payments must be particularly well managed if they are to provide for the long-term interests of the claimant—a significant responsibility to be borne by the beneficiary or their carer. The difficulties involved in managing large sums should not be underestimated. It would be difficult for any one of us, if paid our lifetime's income in one lump sum today, to manage that money so that it lasts as long as we live. The problems can only be magnified when the money is paid to accident victims who are already having to deal with the enormous physical and emotional stress caused by their ongoing disabilities.Even if a lump sum were to be invested and spent by a claimant carefully, it may not last. This is because the assumptions on which the sum was calculated may not prove to be accurate. Lump sum settlements are calculated based on assumptions about future interest rates, inflation and, sometimes, the claimant's mortality. The solution is not simply to shift the risk of inaccurate assumptions from claimants to defendants but to shift the risk to the life insurer from whom the structured settlement is purchased. Life insurers are able to make realistic, market based predictions and are better placed to handle the associated risks. When lump sums are exhausted, the severely disabled beneficiary often becomes reliant on social security and Medicare to meet the costs of their care, rehabilitation and living expenses. Thus the problem of the lump sum payments paid in inappropriate circumstances affects every one of us. Once the money is gone, it is only a matter of time before beneficiaries turn to the government for support.A 1997 report by Coopers and Lybrand conservatively estimated that in any one year recipients of lump sum payments cost the Australian government $225 million. This figure was achieved by calculating the current cost of social security and Medicare for lump sum beneficiaries and deducting it from the total taxation revenue collected from periodic payment recipients. Thus, despite a loss of taxation revenue, the government would actually save money by implementing a structured settlement scheme.While accident victims could now request payment of their common law compensation in the form of periodic payments, this does not happen. Injured people tend to prefer lump sums because of their tax-free status and defendants tend to prefer lump sums because they avoid any ongoing administrative costs. Under a structured settlement scheme, ongoing administrative costs are undertaken by the provider and the compensation is finalised at the time of settlement, and the disincentive of ongoing administrative costs for the defendant is thus avoided. Unless the law is changed to encourage structured settlements, the status quo will remain unchanged. That would be to the detriment of many claimants, many defendant insurers and certainly all taxpayers.Many interest groups regularly approach the government and request tax breaks. We know a certain degree of caution needs to be adopted when we deal with such requests. Structured settlements are, however, a special case on the basis of strong policy and economic grounds. The special tax treatment would only be available to those who have suffered personal injuries and who have elected to receive their compensation periodically. This group of people would be relatively small and comprised of seriously injured people. Few other interest groups seeking tax concessions will be able to justify their call for tax breaks on such a significant social justice basis, nor is their proposed change likely to be revenue positive for the government.I believe that, through the introduction of structured settlements in Australia, the government has the opportunity to benefit both individuals suffering severe injury and all Australian taxpayers. All compensation stakeholders—injured people, insurers and lawyers—support this reform which will greatly improve the compensation system in Australia. There are a number of people who have been quoted as giving unanimous support for structured settlements: the New South Wales Law and Justice Committee in 1996, the Victorian Law Reform Committee in 1997, and an NRMA submission to the Law and Justice Committee in 1998. With those few words, I encourage everyone in this chamber to show support for what would be a vitally important initiative.769412:55:007694Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I wish to speak on a matter of public interest which has importance for the individuals affected and as an example of the policy failure of the Howard government's so-called aged care reforms. I speak today about the experience of a group of health workers in Victoria—nurses, domestics and orderly staff—who are owed up to $50,000 in wages and termination entitlements following the closure of the Alimar Nursing Home in Essendon. Those staff lost their jobs when the home closed in January this year. Some of the workers are now pursuing their entitlements via their union and through action in the courts. Unfortunately, the others—many of them migrants with limited English language skills—have been forced to accept their loss and their powerlessness. Because of their small numbers and the lack of access to publicity, these workers, many of whom were very low paid, stand to lose thousands of dollars of accrued entitlements. They will not be granted the consideration the Oakdale miners eventually gained from this government.This is one of many examples of workers losing their entitlements when a business closes down and the employer fails, or is unable, to meet their obligations. In this case, and in the case of nursing homes generally, there are important issues of government accountability and public policy at stake. The Commonwealth pays to the owner of the nursing home a range of subsidies that effectively pay for the care needs of these older Australians. They are, in large part, Commonwealth subsidised providers. The Commonwealth pays a daily care subsidy for each resident that varies from $60.46 per day to $109.72 per day. In the case of the Alimar Nursing Home, these subsidies would have totalled $1.2 million a year. This is $1.2 million a year of taxpayers' money to pay for the proper care of these older Australians in that nursing home. The subsidy is intended to cover the cost of providing care for residents and, most significantly, to cover the labour related costs, which include the costs of wages, long service leave, superannuation and workers' compensation. In other words, the Commonwealth is effectively paying for the wages of the care workers employed in the industry.In addition, the Commonwealth pays a concessional resident supplement of up to $12.34 a day where a person is unable to afford the government's accommodation charge—that is, charges are levied on residents and/or the Commonwealth to finance the capital upgrading of the employers' premises to ensure that the premises are of high quality and suitable for the care of the aged. In addition to what a provider is paid for the care of the elderly, they also get from either the resident or the Commonwealth up to $12 a day; moneys which are designed to provide for the capital upgrading and to meet the costs of providing a good quality nursing home. So we are providing moneys for not only the care of the elderly but also the capital infrastructure to provide that care. The Commonwealth and the Minister for Aged Care are responsible and accountable for those funds.In the case of the Alimar Nursing Home and others like it, there are serious allegations that the department and the minister have failed to properly protect the public interest in terms of the care of the residents and the use of Commonwealth funds. The residents are entitled to protection not only because they pay 85 per cent of their pension, or $307 a fortnight, to cover the costs of expenses like meals and laundry while they are living there but also because they are entitled to—and we demand—a decent standard of care. Those residents who can afford it are also required to pay up to $4,380 a year through the government's accommodation charge, depending on their assets. Again, this is their contribution to the provider so they can afford to provide proper capital infrastructure for the nursing home—the buildings and the equipment—so that the home is of a sufficient standard to ensure good quality care. The residents, along with the Commonwealth, are contributing to the payment for the cost of the care and the buildings in which that care is provided. Of course, the residents might also be liable for the income tested fee that has been in the news more recently. So the funding of nursing homes is largely from the Commonwealth but there is also a contribution from the residents.The Alimar Nursing Home is one that had failed to meet the bare minimum standards of care required. In an inspection of the home in October 1998, the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency found that there were serious risks to the health and wellbeing of residents. The report identified serious risks in the areas of health and personal care and the physical environment of the nursing home. The inspectors found pans and urine bottles soaking in a sanitising solution. These were not fully immersed, so that increases the risk of serious infection. The inspection team found a number of failings in the standard of cleanliness of the facility and found that the residents did not always receive appropriate clinical care in the nursing home. The inspection found, in total, eight separate instances of serious risk to the health and wellbeing of residents at the home in October last year. `Serious risk' is the highest category of concern that they can express.We have a nursing home that is clearly not up to standard, where the health of the residents is at risk because the standards are not up to scratch. This is a nursing home that is largely financed by the Commonwealth and partly by a contribution from the residents. What happened as a result? It seems that, despite the contributions made by the Commonwealth and its responsibilities in this matter, the owner of the nursing home was allowed to close it in January this year and move to sell the bed licences, which we understand will net him in the order of $1 million. What action was taken to ensure that the money that the Commonwealth and the residents paid in was used for the purpose for which it was designed? None, as far as I can tell. The owner was allowed to run down the facility, rip off the residents, pocket the money, fail to pay the wages of the nurses and other staff at the home, then obtain the department's approval to sell the bed licences and pocket a further $1 million from the sale.This is a disgrace. This is Commonwealth taxpayers' and older Australians' money that has been ripped off. They have not been provided with a decent service, the workers have not been paid their entitlements, no capital improvements funded by the Commonwealth and the residents have taken place, and this character has been allowed to leave the industry, pocketing the money from both the residents and the Commonwealth and the money from the sale of the licences. I want to know why that was allowed to happen, the former employees want to know why it was allowed to happen, and the relatives of the residents want to know how it was allowed to happen.These concerns—particularly about the employees' entitlements—were raised with the department as soon as they were alerted to the closure. The unions and employees were contacting the department saying, `We are concerned about our entitlements. The owner of the Alimar Nursing Home has been underpaying wages. We are concerned that the entitlements of the employees need to be protected. We want your assistance in protecting those.' I know now that those employees are having to seek restitution through the courts. They are having difficulty tracing the owner, and we understand that he has been allowed by the department to sell his licence and leave the industry.This is a character that the department said was running a nursing home that posed a serious risk to the residents. The department had assessed him as being unsuitable in his care of the residents, but we continued to pump Commonwealth funds into his operation and we continued to pay him $12 a day per concessional resident for a capital upgrade of his facility that we knew he had no intention of making. He is one of a small number of providers who will not meet the certification and accreditation standards that are coming into place. His vested interest is in running the facility down, providing poor quality care, making as big a quid as he can out of older Australians in the meantime and fleeing the industry by selling his bed licences at a very healthy rate and pocketing the profit from those. All the time, a provider like this is running a substandard facility. He is pocketing the residents' pension incomes, the Commonwealth care funds, the concessional supplement and the residents' contributions towards capital improvement.What did the Alimar Nursing Home owner have to do in return? Absolutely nothing. The one test that the government applies to him is to send around the accreditation agency to assess whether or not he is providing proper care to the residents. They did that in October and they found out that he was not providing proper care and that the sort of care provided posed a serious risk to the health of the residents.What happens? In January of the following year, he is allowed to quietly close the nursing home, leave his employees without their proper wage and termination entitlements and sell his bed licences with ministerial or departmental approval. So we and the older Australians living in this nursing home have funded the owner to provide substandard care, to pocket the money that should have been spent on their care, to pocket the money that should have been spent on the capital upgrade of the facility, to pocket the money from the sale of the government's licence for nursing home beds and then to leave the industry. That is an absolute disgrace.I want to know what the department has done to protect the interests of residents; I want to know what the department has done to protect the interests of the Commonwealth; and I want to know what the minister has done to protect the financial interests of the Commonwealth. It seems to me that there is a small but not insignificant number of nursing home providers, particularly in Victoria, who have embarked on the same course of action—that is, to run inferior nursing home facilities until such time as the certification and accreditation standards catch up with them, at which time they know that, without any penalty, they will be allowed to sell the beds for a profit and leave the industry.I want to know what protection there is for employees and their entitlements when that occurs. I want to know what action the minister is taking to protect the hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth dollars that are going to those providers for capital improvements but are not used for those improvements. Why do we pay a provider who is going to leave the industry $12 a day per resident so that they can pocket the money and not spend it on capital upgrades? It is a disgrace.Why do we require that elderly Australians, many in their 80s and 90s, have to find—in addition to their pension—$12 a day so that they can contribute towards the upgrade of a facility when the provider has no intention of upgrading the facility which, on the department's own assessment, forces them to live in conditions that pose a serious health risk? In addition to losing all their pension towards meeting the cost of the nursing home, they now have to pay an extra $12 a day so that the character who owns the nursing home can pocket that money and put it towards his own retirement income. It is an absolute disgrace.Pensioners are being forced to find money that many of them do not have and many of them cannot afford with no guarantee that any of that money is used for the improvement of their facility. The government makes no requirement that that money be used for capital upgrades. It seems that it makes no requirement that the nursing care of the elderly that it pays for is actually delivered, no requirement that the funds it pays to the provider are used for that purpose. In fact, when the facility was inspected, it was found that it was not meeting basic standards and that proper care is not being provided. What does the Commonwealth do? It writes another cheque. It keeps on providing money and it keeps on requiring the residents to provide money while the provider is running down the facility and running down the service, knowing that there is no sanction against them, there is no comeback, there is no accountability for the Commonwealth's or the residents' funds, and at the end of the day they will get a nice little profit from the bed licence, because they are allowed to sell it without any questions being asked.I want to ask these questions. Why aren't they required to ensure that the money they collect for capital is used for capital purposes? Why aren't they required to ensure that the money we pay them for care is used for care and that the care is provided? Why aren't they required to ensure that before they leave the industry the entitlements of the employees who have worked for them are met? Those are questions that the department and the minister need to answer before we get even more examples of the sort of disgrace that Alimar Nursing Home represents.769713:10:007697Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—The matter that I wish to raise in today's debate is the proposed legislation put before the Tasmanian parliament by the state Labor government in relation to industrial changes in my home state of Tasmania. It should be noted that the changes are being proposed by the Labor Premier, Jim Bacon, whose great claim to fame was that he was the former Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation in Tasmania.Indeed, Tasmanians still recall that, when Tasmania was without its crossing of the Derwent River as a result of that unfortunate accident in 1975, Mr Bacon in his then capacity as the Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation stopped the concrete pour on the second bridge that was being built, the Bowen Bridge, on the basis that he asserted that it had commenced raining. The fact is that the Bureau of Meteorology recorded that not a single drop of rain fell in Hobart or in its vicinity on that particular day.So that is the sort of fellow we are dealing with. Sure, when he decided he would seek Labor Party preselection and get into parliament, he donned the suits and the silk ties, trimmed his moustache and tried to look smooth and good. To a certain extent the new image worked and, yes, he did win the last election. But the old Secretary of the BLF has come out well and truly with these proposals.The reason I am bringing these proposals before the Senate is twofold. One is to inform the people of Tasmania that they do have an opportunity to reject this legislation, at least in part, in the Legislative Council elections this coming Saturday in the seats of Murchison, Pembroke and Rumney, where the Labor Party are desperately running candidates—might I add, each and every one of them is a failed House of Assembly candidate. The Labor Party are trying to stack them into the upper house with a view to, and hope of, getting this legislation passed through the upper house. So the people of Tasmania do have an opportunity this coming Saturday to cast a protest vote, and I would encourage them to do so.The other point of this debate is to encourage businesses in the event that this legislation does get through the Tasmanian parliament to consider the very real benefits of the Australian workplace agreements that are now available to them; in other words, they ought to opt out of the state system into the federal system and get basically the same benefits of the enterprise agreements. It is very interesting to note that in Tasmania there are currently 482 enterprise agreements registered under legislation which the Groom Liberal government introduced not that many years ago. There are already 482 signed-up agreements in operation, covering 5,996 workers, as at 30 July this year. If you divide that, it means about 12 workers per enterprise agreement. What does that tell you? These enterprise agreements are for the benefit of workers and small businesses because they allow flexibility and they allow arrangements to be made for the benefit of workers and small enterprise.What do we know about small businesses? They are the engine room of the economy—that is the mantra of both sides of politics. The Labor Party and we on this side, as the government, admit that the engine room of the economy and future jobs growth is small businesses. Small businesses have taken to these enterprise agreements and workplace agreements because they suit them, they work well for them and they work well for their employees. They work for workers because in Tasmania, for an enterprise agreement to get through, you need 60 per cent of the work force to agree to that arrangement. So it is not simply a 50 per cent plus one vote but a 60 per cent margin, which really does protect the interests of the workers.A study was done in recent times into the state enterprise agreement system in Tasmania, and what did it show? It showed jobs growth in those businesses that had enterprise agreements. In the state of Tasmania—which suffers the greatest unemployment of any state and where, at best, the economy is sluggish—businesses that are showing jobs growth are those that have embraced enterprise agreements and workplace agreements. They are able to be flexible for the benefit of their work force and for the benefit of their business; therefore, it is a true win-win situation.To try to distract attention from this draconian state legislation, the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council have orchestrated a series of rallies around my home state of Tasmania, allegedly on the basis of campaigning against Mr Reith's federal legislation.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—They are about the second wave.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Mackay is interjecting. I suggest you ring up the Tasmanian Treasurer, David Crean, and ask him to look out his window and see how many people are actually at the rally at Parliament House in Tasmania. I am advised that, as at 12.30 this afternoon, there were only 70 or 75 people at that rally. There would be more trade union officials and paid Labor Party officials than those 70 or 75 that turned out for that rally in Hobart. The question has to be asked: why is it that even trade union officials are staying away from these orches trated rallies? Because they are feeling ashamed of the behaviour of the trade union movement in Tasmania, and they are severely embarrassed by their former BLF Secretary, now Premier, trying to foist this sort of legislation on the people of Tasmania.The Labor Party get all excited because they do not want the people of Tasmania to know what is in this proposed legislation. I want to point out to the Senate today—and to my fellow Tasmanians—that this legislation will basically legalise union thuggery. What it will allow for is—9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—You are so boring, Eric.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Mackay interjects and says it is boring. Take the tip, Senator Mackay, if you are a small business person or, indeed, if you were a worker in a small business, the one thing you would not want is a trade union official to come into your premises uninvited. Everybody on the premises, including the workers, can object to that trade union official entering through that door but, under this legislation, none of them would have a right to object because it would legalise this group of trade unionists, acting as vigilantes, entering business premises willy-nilly and uninvited. If there is a suspected breach of industrial laws, then it is not for a vigilante group of trade union thugs to enter the workplace. It is for industrial relations officials to enter those premises, search the records and determine if there is any complaint to be made.To simply allow trade union officials to walk in uninvited is completely unacceptable in this day and age. Indeed, as I understand it, the amendments we made to the federal legislation were, in fact, supported and negotiated by a now frontbencher on the ALP side, Cheryl Kernot. The Australian Labor Party want to keep interjecting—wasn't it amazing when I mentioned Cheryl Kernot's name that, just for a moment, they went silent, and I can understand why. There are many people on the Labor side of politics who object to this sort of legalised union thuggery. They do not want trade union officials to be able to walk in uninvited to their business premises and to their workplaces.Another change that is being proposed is in relation to the enterprise agreement system. As I advised the Senate just before, you need 60 per cent of the workers to vote in favour of it. The Enterprise Commissioner goes through the regularity of that process very carefully and makes a determination as to whether or not the agreement is fair, reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances. Indeed, what has happened on many occasions is that the workers and employers have got together, made an arrangement which suited them and then gone to the Enterprise Commissioner who ratified it.But that is not good enough for the trade union movement. Even if they do not have a single member in the workplace and even if each and every single worker objects to union involvement, the union will be entitled to intervene in the proceedings before the Enterprise Commissioner. That is offensive to anybody who has a broad view of Australian society. People ought to be free to enter into arrangements with an independent arbiter; namely, the Enterprise Commissioner.The enterprise agreement system has worked well in Tasmania. In fact, it has slowed down the huge rate of unemployment in my home state of Tasmania. Yet Labor wants to get rid of the position of Enterprise Commissioner. The Labor Party does not want to see the success of this system. Why? Because it obviates the need for unions. It is based on good employer-employee relations. As a result, the trade unions are dealt out of the scheme, they have fewer members, less income and—guess what?—less money to forward to the Labor Party at election time. That is the real root cause behind Labor's manic determination to push this legislation through in my home state.The people on the other side of the chamber tell us that they are absolutely committed to the principles of privacy and the rights of individuals. Then why is it that they would want those private arrangements, which are sanctioned by the Enterprise Commissioner, to be put on the public record? If you have a small enterprise—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—But it is no good if they are secret.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—They are secret.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Let's see them if they are so good.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Sherry and Senator Mackay say, `If they are so good, then why don't you show them.' There are competitive advantages. In a small business you might have only three employees. It would be pretty obvious under the job descriptions in those agreements who fits into which category. It would be publicly on the record exactly all the benefits that they get, which might include employee bonuses. That might mean, if you are a retailer, that the employee can purchase a whole lot of benefits at a discounted price. That might mean flexible working arrangements for individual workers if they have negotiated that. For businesses to retain a competitive advantage, they should not have to disclose that to their competitors. All they need do under the current system is to disclose it to the Enterprise Commissioner, an independent arbiter, who can determine whether the agreement is appropriate in all the circumstances.In the few moments remaining to me, I would like to stress the importance and benefit of these enterprise agreements and workplace agreements to women workers. The mantra of the Australian Labor Party is such that they continually say, `This is bad for women workers.' But the reality is that it is very good, because if there is one sector of the work force that has craved flexibility because of competing family needs, then it is women. Women want flexible working hours. Indeed, honourable senators and the general public may well remember—Senators Tierney and Coonan will remember—the case in New South Wales concerning a factory full of women employees. The women employees approached management and asked for flexible work hours so that they could drop their kids off at school and pick them up again after school. Who blocked it? The trade union movement blocked it, against the wishes of each and every one of the women in that factory. So the opposition should not come to us on this side, saying that it somehow supports women workers. The people of Tasmania on Saturday have an opportunity to reject this legislation, by voting against Labor candidates in Murchison, Pembroke and Rumney.770013:24:007700Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I would like to raise today a matter of great public concern: the issue of people smuggling. In recent times there has been considerable publicity about the numbers of people paying $20,000 and more, according to press reports, to board a rusty old boat, hoping to land somewhere on the Australian coast. Considerable evidence is now emerging to suggest that there may be many more thousands of people entering Australia through the inappropriate granting of student visa applications.Last Thursday the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, in his usual slippery manner, released late in the day a press release which was headed: `Greater Protection for Overseas Students'. This, of course, would be a matter of great amusement if the issues raised were not so serious. The minister announced a review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act, known as the ESOS Act. He told us that this was `in line with the commitment to constantly monitor the effectiveness of legislation and policy'. You might ask what was wrong with that. Nothing—if that was in fact true.What we have seen in recent times is that this minister has effectively ignored the advice that is being tendered to him from a number of sources. We could begin with the advice tendered to him over 12 months ago—an entire year ago—in a report by the Senate education committee last August, which unanimously recommended that the issues raised in that report be considered by government `as a matter of priority'. I want to repeat that: these were recommendations which were endorsed by all senators from all parties `as a matter of priority'. This was a committee report following an inquiry initiated by the Labor opposition. Just five minutes spent listening to or reading some of the evidence given to the committee inquiry would have been enough for even the most obtuse minister to recognise that the education export industry is a ticking time bomb of potential migration rorts and student exploitation.I would like to emphasise that, while most education providers of overseas students are completely legitimate, it would appear that a lack of coordination between the various government authorities is enabling some organisations to recruit for the purposes of securing a visa rather than an educational course. I am concerned about reports emerging that some unscrupulous, unethical enterprises are now engaging in the use of student visas for a range of activities which are completely at odds with our intentions, as a country, to establish a high-quality education industry. In fact, some of these intentions go to the issue of prostitution.What we have seen is that the scale of administrative and regulatory problems has escalated. This minister has been content to simply put his head in the sand and pretend that all is well. He has, of course, overseen this situation; he has overseen the administration of an education industry which has seen quality, in my judgment, plummet. We are seeing students being ripped off, and the reputation of the education industry as a quality provider has been left to wither.Australia's education export industry is worth about $3½ billion a year: it is our fourth largest export industry. Competition, we all know, is fierce. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We cannot afford to allow our international reputation as a quality education provider to be damaged. Yet Dr Kemp has done nothing about the issues that were raised over a year ago. The sunset clause of the ESOS Act was extended and will continue through to the beginning of 2002. This situation will continue until Dr Kemp has been pressured by the Labor opposition and until he has been faced with a series of collapses of private education colleges, and front-page scandals.The minister, of course, has left this announcement far too late. He has also allowed the release, once again, of a misleading press release, in which he says, `I am keen to build on the effectiveness of the regulatory framework.' This implies that the current regulatory framework actually works. I put it to the minister that it does not, and it has not for some years. I ask: has the minister been living on the moon for him not to know this?For instance, we have seen the use of the trust accounts. Under the ESOS Act, the Commonwealth maintains a register of institutions and courses for overseas students, and requires private education and training providers to maintain trust accounts as an insurance for students should the businesses fail. Since last year's ESOS inquiry, volumes of evidence have emerged showing the absurdity of the minister's and the department's claim that it is adequately auditing these trust accounts. We all know that it is currently done on the basis of a once-per-year operation. We all know that the day after the trust accounts are audited, the money can be withdrawn. We all know that the day before the trust account is audited, money can be added to top up.We have seen that a kindergarten child could get around this type of regulation. Unscrupulous providers have made a habit of withdrawing funds the day after the audit. In recent times various organisations involved in the industry have pointed to the loopholes that currently exist within these so-called TAS requirements.We have seen allegations being made of immigration agents now demanding of colleges up to 50 per cent of student fees—which in many colleges is some $12,000 a year—as kickbacks for the provision of students. We have seen allegations now being made about non-attendance records not being kept. We have seen other allegations being raised that some colleges now provide non-attending students with attendance records on the basis of a fee. That is then used for the basis of further extensions of visa applications.In the state of Victoria we saw the Business Institute of Victoria go into receivership in May this year. The information I had was that that college had no money in its trust accounts at the time of its collapse. The BIV operated English language courses in Melbourne and Vanuatu. Some 20 students from the Melbourne campus were placed at Chalmer's Business College, RMIT and the Central Queensland University's Melbourne campus, but it is not apparent what happened to the rest of the students.There is clear evidence that a number of students involved in that college were not bona fide students, and never intended to be bona fide students. For instance, a college such as the Business Institute of Victoria, which was registered as a registered training organisation to provide courses in security and cleaning, allowed students to enter the country on visa applications, as the current law allows, and then transferred those same students to MBA courses for which the college at no time was registered.It was quite illegal for it to do that, yet have we heard of any prosecutions being launched by this department or this minister? Have we heard of any effective regulation being taken in regard to those colleges?We have further evidence that the same college and the same principals involved with the Business Institute of Victoria engaged in a phoenix operation—that is, after the college goes bankrupt, within a very short time the son of the principal of the bankrupt company reopens the college accounts and accepts moneys on behalf of students engaged in that college. Yet, again, we see no action being taken by this government or this department.One could understand this, as there was a 50 per cent reduction in the number of staff available through DETYA to monitor the operations of the overseas college. It is very difficult for hardworking officers—and they are clearly regarded as men and women of great integrity—to actually carry out their job effectively. One could expect that, with a 50 per cent reduction in resources, it is not possible for the government, even if it were prepared to pursue these issues, to do so adequately.The Business Institute of Victoria, however, was a college that also received support and encouragement from other agencies within government. For instance, it received an export market development grant of $43,000 from Austrade just a few months before it collapsed. Dr Kemp talks of his whole-of-government approach, but when we see the way this overseas students program is operated it is quite apparent that there is not a whole-of-government approach operating within this government.It is quite apparent that the government in Canberra knows very little about what is occurring within the states. It is quite apparent that within a very short period of time, people who want to join the so-called Commonwealth register of overseas colleges can apply and receive permission to be added to that list. Within 24 hours a name, an address, a fax number and telephone number are provided by the state authority of the department of education in Canberra. Within 24 hours of that, that information is applied to all our posts overseas. So within a very short time, a matter of days after an application for entry to the CRICOS list, you can find that students are able to apply for and be given permission to enter Australia.We have evidence presented to the Senate committee by the department of immigration on this matter, which I have been pursuing, which clearly demonstrates that they are not effectively in charge of the operation of this scheme either. Each department passes the buck. Immigration does not seem to understand what the department of education is doing and does not seem to care. For that matter, the department of education in Canberra does not seem to care what the states are doing. What we have, for instance, are the questions I asked: is there effective monitoring of the ESOS Act and is an attempt being made by the Commonwealth government to check the bona fides of the fit and proper persons test, for instance, that applies in other aspects of Commonwealth legislation? It does not apply in this area.In response to a question on notice, we are told that the immigration officials required to decide student visa applications are not able to look behind either the ESOS Act or CRICOS, the Commonwealth registry. So it would appear that the whole-of-government approach this minister is pursuing is totally fallacious. We have the case, for instance, I raised in the Senate just a fortnight ago at question time. I have yet to receive an answer concerning that operation of the National College of Australia, where, I remind the Senate, some 300 students appear to have gone missing.Three months after the college collapsed this government is not able to advise the Senate where these students are and what they are doing. I think you are entitled to seek advice as to why the department was not able to have records that were consistent with the advice given to the company investigators that were handling the liquidation. Some 600 overseas students were on the company records, yet the department seems to have known about only 232.We are entitled to know why it was—according to DETYA records—that only 15 students were placed in other institutions and only 53 students applied for refunds of their fees. What happened to the rest of the students? We are entitled to know why the department did not have addresses for those students and was not able to contact them immediately the college collapsed. We are entitled to know why the insurance company, the Australian Underwriting Agencies, was refusing to pay students who were seeking payments for the loss of fees. It was because—as I understand—the insurance company had clear evidence that fraud was involved in the collapse.Ralph Bidwell, the principal of the college, did commit suicide and made it difficult to inquire as to the exact arrangements as to why the records of the college were destroyed. It was difficult to inquire why it was that so many students were enrolled in the college but were not registered with the Commonwealth.We have a major problem here and I would ask the minister, in terms of his review, whether or not other colleges that are involved in this industry are using loopholes in the act to secure insurance through not being part of the Tertiary Assurance Scheme, and are being refused payment when they collapse because they have been engaged in fraudulent activity, such as the over-enrolment of students. We saw that, for instance, in the case that emerged last November of the International Business College, operating out of Sydney. In Victoria we have a government currently facing an election. It claims that it is prepared to defend high quality educational outcomes, but it would seem that the operations of this act are unable to ensure that there are proper quality provisions. It is quite apparent that the Commonwealth government is not prepared to follow through its responsibilities to ensure that there are appropriate records kept and that there is proper monitoring undertaken to protect the quality assurance of Australian industry.I repeat that it is my intention to pursue these questions through the parliamentary processes, and to ensure that we protect the quality of Australian education industry. I am afraid that I cannot say that there is the same level of scrutiny being provided by this government, and this minister in particular. I am particularly concerned about the operations of these so-called visa factories. I am concerned that the minister has not done all that he can to ensure that there is effective monitoring and coordination in government. If this government were serious about its whole-of-government approach, then we would see far greater actions taken to protect students and to protect the reputation of Australia in this area.I am afraid that most people cannot rely upon the bland and glib assurances that are issued by this government as to reviews that are being undertaken when, quite clearly, there is an overwhelming body of evidence of inappropriate behaviour. (Time expired)770313:39:007703Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to speak today on a matter of public interest for people of the Gold Coast in my home state, Queensland, concerning a proposed development in the Runaway Bay part of the city of the Gold Coast. There is an article on the front page of a Gold Coast newspaper today about a proposed development for a sporting facility. It is being funded by a company and the profits from it are apparently going to go to sick children. A Gold Coast councillor, Alan Rickard, is quoted as saying:Here we have a major international benefactor who is investing a significant amount of money and not seeking any return.They are just going to set this up, stand to one side and just feel glad to be involved. It is unheard of.Councillor Rickard admits this is unusual but obviously thinks it is a good thing. On the surface, of course, it sounds like a good thing—a sporting facility, profits going to sick children. How can anyone object to that?It is interesting that the article which talks about this facility going ahead appears before the facility has actually been given approval by the council. Indeed, it appears just a few days after a number of articles in the Gold Coast Bulletin outlining very significant concerns about the state of the site that the proposed development is meant to be going on. So there are many unusual things about this proposed development of a sporting facility, and it is not just a matter of an unusual degree of benevolence and philanthropy on the part of an international benefactor.For a start, the area that the proposed development is going on was a toxic dump for a significant number of years. It was one of the three major liquid waste dumping sites in south-east Queensland. From 1939, for many years, for only a few dollars a truckload of liquid waste of various types could be dumped there with virtually no checking of the contents of that waste. The landfill site over a number of hectares included 15 raw sewage lagoons and, at one time, a hospital waste incinerator; there were grease traps; pathological waste from veterinarians, including carcasses, was dumped there; nightsoil was dumped there and also commercial industrial waste—virtually the whole gamut of waste.People from south-east Queensland and the Brisbane area would probably be familiar with the Willawong site, which was also a toxic waste facility. It charged much higher prices than the Gold Coast site for the dumping of waste and certainly some degree at least, in the later years particularly, of oversight of what was actually put into it occurred—much greater stringency, it would appear, than was the case with this site on the Gold Coast. Yet, again as people from south-east Queensland would be aware, the costs and the necessary actions to clean up the Willawong site have been significant. There has been virtually none of that occurring on this old toxic dump site on the Gold Coast.The former dump site is quite close to a canal estate in the area, and the canal flows through from there into the Broadwater. Recently, a marine biologist who has tested in the area, Dr Bob Morris, said that the former dump site is leaching toxic metals into the environment and posing a public health risk. Dr Morris has said:My data strongly suggests that high levels of some highly toxic metals and organisms are coming from a point source in the vicinity of the old dump site. The levels of some of the toxic metals were much higher than I have ever previously encountered.I should emphasise that Dr Morris, whom I have met, is a highly qualified practitioner. He is employed by the British government in assessing environmentally degraded sites along the coast of Britain and has a high degree of knowledge of the geological and pollution issues relating to acid sulfate soils and coastal development, and identifying the degrees of degradation and pollution. Certainly from my experience with him, I would say he is someone that, firstly, knows his stuff and, secondly, does not go round idly making wild accusations.Dr Morris has been quoted as saying that oysters from a canal close to the old site had the highest pollution levels he has ever seen, and he has written to the Gold Coast Council asking for public warning signs to be erected in these canals. This is someone who has done a lot of testing in Europe and Britain and I think it would be pretty fair to say, without casting too many aspersions, that there are a few sites in those parts of the world that are not exactly pristine. For him to say these are the highest pollution levels he has ever seen in seafood is a matter of great concern.This is only the latest in a long line of allegations, unfortunately, levelled at the former dump site. Of concern to me and to many people in the local community is the unavoidable reality that any development on the proposed site which was part of where the dump was would obviously dramatically affect rehabilitation. But, unusually, the council have rejected all of these concerns and seem to have been saying to date that their own studies give the area the all clear. Indeed, they are very keenly rushing forward to sign a lease to build a multimillion dollar sporting development on top of parts of this site—a private development on public land designated recreational open space which used to be part of a major liquid waste dump. This is a matter of great concern to many people in the area.There have been a number of decisions about granting development approval for this site which have occurred since 1995 and tomorrow the council is proposing to ratify a 50-year lease for eight hectares of the dump planned. The proposed developer is the US based InterPacific Resorts Pty Ltd.The same consultants who examined the contamination of the site, testing and developing the site management plan, were used by the state government, the council, and by InterPacific Resorts. This, it seems to me, is a bit unusual. Normally, one would think independent consultants would work for each party separately in managing and testing contaminated land. The test results from the consultants which gave the area the all clear are in dispute, with scientists questioning the techniques, the location of test sites, and the analysis of results. A number of details of this have appeared in the Gold Coast Bulletin in recent times.In 1997, the council conducted a drain clearing excavation for which, again unusually, they got state government approval retrospectively. Thanks to the drain clearing excavation, leachate was deliberately discharged into the ground water. Of course, some testing is now occurring on the nice capping layer of clean fill over the top. As anybody would know, putting a bit of clean fill over the top really has as much effect as sweeping dirt under the carpet—it certainly does not make it go away and it does not solve the problem.This is an uncontrolled, unlined, former landfill site. That means there are no impervi ous barriers preventing intermingling with the ground water. The Queensland government and the Gold Coast City Council to date have refused to let an independent scientific body test the area. That seems unusual as well.There are a number of other unusual things. The newspaper reports again detail how the site at one stage was valued at more than $4 million, a year later was revalued at $2 million, and later down to $300,000, and only after that valuation was the development approved. Unusually, the lease is costing less than $10,000 a year, and a 50-year lease has been provided rather than the usual 30-year one. InterPacific Resorts has also been handed a sole supplier status over the land which, again, seems somewhat unusual. They have also had sewerage connection charges waived, another unusual decision which I am told the council made against the advice of its own planning department.Despite all this apparently somewhat unusual assistance to InterPacific Resorts, it turns out that InterPacific Resorts, which is funding the development, is allegedly not actually on the lease. It is intended that the site be leased by the Couran Cove Resort Children in Need Beneficiary Trust, the trustee of which is another company. The beneficiary trust will be administered by a small board of three people, including the head of the Couran Cove Resort on South Stradbroke Island. The concern is that the trust will then sublease the site to a construction company that would sign a management agreement with yet another company part owned by Mr Clarke, the person who heads the Couran Cove Resort on South Stradbroke Island.According to media reports, another member of the three-member board administering the trust will probably be the aforementioned Gold Coast Councillor, Alan Rickard, whom I quoted at the start of my speech and who had such effusive praise for the project. This leaves the possibility that InterPacific Resorts can withdraw and leave a trust in place, a trust which would have no ability to address past, present or future contamination litigation issues. It is quite easy to see the potential for litigation down the track if the toxic nature of the old dump site is anywhere near as severe as many people are concerned it is.It is not simply a matter of the health aspects of people using the facility that is going to be built on the site, but of people who use the canals and waterways surrounding the site for recreational purposes. It leaves a great concern that the health of future users of those facilities may be affected by some of these measures. It is better to ensure that everything is addressed beforehand, rather than have problems appear down the track, particularly ones that appear as probable as these ones.The Runaway Bay Centre has refused to pay a bond to ensure the site is properly capped. The council has agreed to contribute $150,000 to the estimated capping cost of $1 million. This is a deal that the state government, business and the Gold Coast City Council have all been involved in and yet the risk is, in the end, that no-one will be liable, no-one will pick up the tab for cleaning up this site and any potential pollution that happens as a result of it.It is a concern that the Gold Coast City Council appears to be refusing to allow independent scientific testing of the toxicity of the site before going ahead with considering approval. It is a concern that developers are hiding behind the Children in Need Beneficiary Trust. Everybody, of course, likes the idea of assistance going to children in need and charitable assistance being provided, but to refuse to address the genuine concerns that people have and use the screen of the need to support a so-called charitable development is something that I believe is inappropriate.It is clear that mistakes have been made in the past. Untreated waste should never have been dumped there. Legal and transparent development approval processes should have been followed, and this site, clearly, should have been rehabilitated properly. Clearly, it has not.This is not an isolated example. In Queensland, significant inquiries have been documented into illegal dumping of materials in recent years. Unfortunately, mistakes have been made in the past and, clearly, standards were not what they should have been. But there is not much point being aware of mistakes of the past unless you learn from them and seek to remedy them rather than cover them up, hoping nobody notices and pressing on regardless. I very much urge the Gold Coast City Council, and the trust which seems to be connected to it, that, when they decide whether or not they will ratify the decision to lease the site to a management chain of companies, they do not make another mistake by building on the ones of the past—that they stop the chain of mistakes and cover-ups over the years and they seek to get the facts about the state of the site at the moment and the potential implications on people who may use the site, or the canals and the waterways around the site, rather than blithely saying there is no problem, there is no concern and everything should go ahead.It is a crucial test in many ways. This is a very significant site, and it is an opportunity for a very sizeable city council in Queensland to demonstrate that it is willing to bite the bullet and tackle some difficult issues, to pay attention to community concern, to ensure that there are not any unaddressed and unforeseen potential future problems, and to recognise as a council their responsibilities and liabilities for public health of their residents and of those who use the area. I do urge them very much to take that responsibility seriously. It is certainly a decision that many people, including me, will be watching closely. It is not just a matter of one small development on one block; it is a matter of potential consequences and ongoing implications for waterways surrounding that area. That is something that I believe people not just at local council level but more broadly need to ensure that there is proper monitoring of and, if proper monitoring is not occurring through the council, then perhaps other bodies will need to take a closer interest in it.770613:54:007706Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—In my contribution to the MPI debate today, I would like to draw to the attention of the Senate the ongoing plight of regional Australia and the policy issues it raises. It came home very strongly to me last year when I was moving through the New England region of New South Wales, through what is called big sky country. As part of the highway that leads from Tenterfield down to Armidale, there is a major railway that runs beside the New England Highway. This was shut down about 25 years ago. For 75 kilometres there are weeds growing through the railway line and there are old broken-down stations. Perhaps to add insult to injury over the years, the New England Highway has been realigned across part of this old rail, putting us in a situation where the line could probably never be re-opened again.This used to be a very vital lifeline into other areas of New South Wales that is now no longer there. The result of this type of withdrawal of services has been creating great problems across the bush for many decades. There has been a tension between the city and the bush that has existed for a long time. It is perhaps best highlighted by A.D. Hope in a poem in 1938, when he described the major cities of Australia:And her five cities, like five teeming sores, each drains her vast parasite robber state.Since that time we have had further decline in population and in a number of key industries in the bush. If you have a look at the statistics, eight years after A.D. Hope's words, 38 per cent of the population was outside the capital cities at that point. By 1998 it had dropped to 28 per cent, and it continues to decline.The big challenge in rural and regional Australia, particularly given the opening up of the economy—the moves towards deregulation and globalisation—is to come up with effective strategies to assist the bush to survive in this new global environment. Just as a cameo, something happened at lunchtime that illustrates one of those survival strategies. I was at the launch of the Telstra Big Pond advance system, where, by satellite into rural and regional Australia, the Internet will have a capacity of 400 kilobytes per second compared with the current capacity of 64. In that way, the bush is tending to leapfrog.In the areas of information technology and a whole range of new strategies there is a lot of hope for the bush, but over the years a number of strategies have not worked. We need to evaluate the approach we are taking now and see how we can provide government support with policy for the development of our rural and regional areas. Historically, back in the 1950s and 1960s we had departments of decentralisation. We tended to foster outside the capital cities a cargo cult mentality that we would be able to get industries to move out of the cities into the bush, a mentality of, `If only this particular industry would come to our town, that would solve our problems.' There was not any great exodus of manufacturing from the cities to the bush at that time, and there was not a great eagerness to take up the more low-cost environment that existed then, so the policy of the 1950s and 1960s did not work.Moving to the 1970s, Gough Whitlam came up with a regional growth centre strategy which perhaps had its best expression in an area like Albury-Wodonga. In the Bathurst-Orange area, a new city of Victoria was planned. Both of those experiments failed. The story goes that Gough came up with the policy in the early 1970s. He was looking for a policy for southern New South Wales. He found that the Riverina had a dam and it had a college of advanced education. What on earth could he promise them? He came up with this Albury-Wodonga growth centre concept, which has now been wound down. We now have the situation where Victoria is occupied by possums and wombats. That failed experiment is now where we are up to in the story that I am putting before the Senate about changing policy. We are about to get to question time, so I am running out of time. I will continue at the next MPI.Questions Without Notice770777077707Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Having had the opportunity to brief himself on the detail of the selection process for the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects and the information he and his department have provided through the estimates process, can the minister confirm that, in respect of the initial 12 projects which ministers admitted they had selected notwithstanding their below-15 ranking, their total value amounted to $11.7 million and only two had been recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation? Will he now clarify (a) how much the other four projects in this category, which ministers have now admitted to, are worth; and (b) how many of these four projects were recommended by the National Council for the Centenary of Federation?7708Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am surprised that Senator Lundy wants to waste a question on this issue when she is out there telling everyone else that she is obsessed with online content. Anyway, I will not go on about that. If this is the best that Senator Lundy can do, she is clearly not demonstrating too many credentials. I think I have already dealt with this whole issue—RF4COOKSenator Cook—No, you haven't.LD4Senator ALSTON—Where is the—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Aren't you too precious!LD4Senator ALSTON—I certainly would not want to be accused of being precious in the way you were for years.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You are a precious little item, aren't you?LD4Senator ALSTON—In future I will just talk over the top of Senator Cook, Madam President—subject to your rulings, of course.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why don't you answer the question?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Cook, you are out of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—We have already dealt with these matters. But I think probably the most important thing that has emerged in terms of what is new—as opposed to recycled matters some days old—is a document called `The 16 shonks tipping competition'. Instructions: tick the 16 Federation Fund projects from the list which you think came from—7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Madam President, on a point of order: I have asked two specific questions and sought confirmation in another matter. Can you direct the minister to answer the questions?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I cannot direct the minister to answer the question. He must be relevant to the matter that has been raised. I would ask Senator Alston to proceed, but having the question in mind.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am particularly concerned to address the question which, of course, deals with the projects that were approved by Senator Hill and myself and which, I think, met with resounding approval from all those who were the ultimate beneficiaries. Senator Lundy and her colleagues have as yet failed to nominate any single project that they would regard as less than deserving of support.I do not know what this `16 shonks tipping competition'—a fax from the office of John Faulkner—is meant to be. One has to presume that this is just a sick joke to fill in time because there is nothing much else happening in opposition. It says:Remember—16 ticks only. This is not preferential; it is first past the post. First correct entry receives a gold shonk buster certificate signed by Kim Beazley. All other correct entries receive a bronze certificate.This puts it in context, Madam President. This has now become a little joke for insiders. This is not a serious policy issue at all. What Senator Faulkner has done is demonstrate to the public at large that this is really a game that is being played.Until today, of course, we did not know the extent to which they thought this was a joke, but we now do. Quite clearly, if it is to be re-elevated to an item of seriousness, the challenge is for the opposition to point to any one of the projects which they allege is a shonk. Rather than playing mickey mouse tipping games and getting some third-rate prize from Senator Faulkner—let alone the current leader, Mr Beazley—I would have thought that, if they wanted to be serious contributors to the debate out there, they would go out and visit some of these programs.I assume that Senator Conroy has made his peace with Mr Barresi, and he has rung him up and apologised for getting his name wrong. There are a lot of things the opposition can do if they are serious about this issue. RF4COOKSenator Cook—Are you a coward?LD4Senator ALSTON—But now that we have the `16 shonks tipping competition', I think it says it all. This issue is no longer taken seriously even by the opposition.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You're a coward. Why don't you front up to the question?7709Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, why are you unable to answer these questions, despite being able to provide the information I am seeking for the initial 12 projects? Will you provide the information relating to the remaining four? If not, why are you refusing to provide this level of information? Will you take this question on notice?UW4CRANESenator Crane—Madam President, I rise on a point of order under standing order 203. I do not believe the interjection by Senator Cook, referring to Minister Alston as a coward and calling across the chamber, `Are you a coward?' is acceptable parliamentary behaviour. Could he be asked to withdraw that comment?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If that is what you said, Senator Cook, it should be withdrawn.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I did say that. I thought it was an accurate statement. But since it is—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is not a matter for you to debate, Senator. I ask you to withdraw.RF4COOKSenator Cook—I do not intend to debate it, Madam President. I withdraw it. I thought truth should be a defence, but I withdraw in deference to you, Madam President.7709Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Madam President, I am happy to meet Senator Cook in the gym tonight.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! We are waiting to proceed with question time.LD4Senator ALSTON—Now that Senator Cook has finally got rid of that yacht, I presume he has a bit more time to come down and demonstrate his credentials. The fact is that we have made it plain on a number of occasions that we are not going to get into the business of identifying particular projects or their rankings.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. I am finding it difficult to hear. The Senate will come to order.LD4Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam President. We have made it very plain that we are not in the business of putting numbers alongside these projects, either by money or by points. All that would do is cause embarrassment to both the winners and the losers, because it would compromise their capacity to raise funds from the commercial sector and, indeed, from the community and municipal sector. That is not in their best interest. Senator Faulkner, of course, understands this. (Time expired)77097709Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister inform the Senate of the major gains for Australian workers and families achieved as a result of the government's sound economic policies? Is the minister aware of recent reports by commentators which underline the success of the government's strategy?7709Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Chapman for this important question. Senator Chapman has shown a long interest in policies relating to the economy and has made a great contribution over the years. I welcome the question from Senator Chapman.The government is very proud of its achievements in relation to the economy and in relation to the benefits that have been provided to Australian workers and families. These benefits can be summed up briefly as more jobs, better pay, lower mortgage costs, and, of course, major tax cuts on the way. These have all been delivered in the context of Australia's very strong economy, which I think is the envy of the region and possibly the world.We are very proud of our record on jobs. There are more people in employment now than at any other time in Australian history. Almost half a million new jobs have been created in the 3½ years since this government has been in office. Jobs growth has translated into lower unemployment. Australia's unemployment rate this July of seven per cent is the lowest since July 1990. Not only are there more jobs but also wages are increasing faster than inflation, meaning that more workers are getting ahead. This reflects the very strong productivity performance of the Australian economy in recent years.Not only are there more jobs, not only are real wages higher, but also home mortgage rates have fallen very substantially. When Labor lost office—the unlamented Labor government—home mortgage rates were at 10.5 per cent. And we all remember when home mortgage rates were at an incredible 17 per cent during the term of the Labor government. Basic home mortgage rates are now in the order of six to 6.5 per cent and these are delivering very substantial savings in payments of interest by Australian families. And the good news does not stop there. We are delivering, as a result of the tax reform package, the largest tax cuts in Australian history—tax cuts of the order of $12 billion on income tax paid by Australian families.More jobs, lower taxes, lower interest rates—this is a great record of achievement, and I am very pleased to say that other commentators have noticed that. Many in the Senate will remember former Senator Richardson, a former powerbroker of the Labor Party.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Who?WW4Senator KEMP—He is recalled with varying degrees of affection in this chamber. Senator Faulkner has one particular view of the former senator, and others have other views. But this is what this former Labor powerbroker said on the record of the Howard government: `The Howard government has had some major success on the economic front and that ought to be acknowledged.' This is what he went on to say and I think it is worth recording. If I had a supplementary I could go on. (Time expired)7710Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I did ask the Assistant Treasurer if he would enlighten us on any recent reports by commentators. I note that he had started to do that, and I would appreciate additional information on the opinions expressed by those commentators.7710Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Chapman. That is a very good supplementary, I might say, which shows a great quickness of mind. Former Senator Richardson said, `If there is one thing that flourished under the Labor government, it was unemployment.' This former Labor powerbroker has acknowledged the success of this government in managing the economy. He has recognised the problems which occurred under the previous government—as indeed people like Mr Graham Campbell have recognised a fall real wages. We have a very proud record of achievement, and that is why I believe that the Labor Party, in its policy-free zone, will be out of office and over that side of the parliament for a very long period of time.77107710Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. How does the minister justify agreeing to an independent departmental task force to assess applications under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, endorsing a detailed and rigorous assessment process as he did on 9 July last year, asserting that this process accorded with the Auditor-General's guidelines, and then dismissing the outcome of this process as `arbitrary and gratuitous', as he did yesterday? What is the point of setting up an independent process if you are going to not only ignore but denigrate its outcomes?7710Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am very sorry that Senator Evans was not here for the whole of question time yesterday because had he been he would have heard me explain in excruciating detail that we took the view that we should look at all these projects. We did not want to take the easy way out and simply look at the 114, or do what Senator Faulkner would have done and rung up the Secretary of the department and said, `For heaven's sake, we have only got to select 60; send us 62.' We actually wanted to look at the lot. In order to do that, we looked at every project. What I was saying yesterday was that the department took it upon themselves to draw a line for convenience—gratuitous, because they were not asked to draw a line, and they understand that.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—`Took it upon themselves'! You agreed to the process beforehand. You signed up to the process.10000The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, shouting across the chamber in that fashion is totally disorderly. It is not your question, in any event.LD4Senator ALSTON—This is really getting beyond the farcical stage. We must have said on at least a dozen occasions in recent times that there was no independent process agreed to which we intervened in, as Senator Faulkner's wholly owned subsidiary seems to love writing. The fact is that we were given advice by the joint task force—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You haven't read the submission, have you?10000The PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, I have already called you to order.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, I presume Senator Conroy is interested to know that in Deakin the Labor councillor Nick Kermos actually thanked the government and told the Liberal member he was most appreciative of such a worthwhile project. In fact, the council thought so much of the project they contributed an extra $1 million. If you were in touch with the local community you would know what was going on out there. The councils do not want people who spend all their time at the Trades Hall Council trying to score points in Canberra. They want people to be in touch with the grassroots. They want to know what projects on the ground deserve support. They want to know what they think of them. They want their help in pursuing them. But no, all we get is just a little bit of fun and games, a tipping contest. It really says it all, doesn't it? `Tick the 16 shonks'. Who could ever take this seriously in future?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Name them.LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, you've blown your cover.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Name the 16 shonks.LD4Senator ALSTON—No, you are inviting your colleagues—10000The PRESIDENT—Order!LD4Senator ALSTON—This is the whole point, Madam President. What Senator Faulkner is effectively saying is: `I know you blokes have got nothing else better to do with your time'. It is coming towards the end of the football season so, even if Senator Conroy wins and distributes the largesse, that will only get them through the next few weeks. `This is something to fill in time for weeks to come. You can go out to the projects and have a look at them and then you fill in the form and send it back, and if Kim Beazley is still the leader you get a gold shonk buster certificate.' It is pathetic, isn't it?These things are presumably going to be pinned up on the walls in the caucus room and everyone is going to have a bit of a giggle and say, `Really and truly, we have managed to get through the last fortnight with absolutely nothing going for us. Once again we have avoided tackling any serious policy issues. We have played these little games. We thought that we could project a serious face.' And look at Senator Faulkner—he is smirking even now. They can't help themselves. He has blown his own cover. You should have waited and sent this out in the dead of night. Instead of faxing it across to me—I do not need to see this rubbish; I have better things to do with my time—you should hand deliver it if you are worried about security. We can give you some decent encryption systems that will make sure this sort of thing does not happen again. All I can say is that we are very grateful to Senator Faulkner—I am sure his colleagues are not—for really putting it on the table once and for all that this is a silly little game that has really backfired.7711Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I have a supplementary question. I must agree with the minister: his answers are excruciating. Is the minister aware that the Auditor-General's guidelines require that reasons for decisions and recommendations should be accessible under the freedom of information provisions? Is he further aware that the Auditor-General has stated that `accurate and relevant information explaining the reasons for decisions is the key to effective accountability because it enables the public to make informed decisions about the performance of officials'? How can his refusal to publicly release the reasons for his decisions be consistent with those guidelines? If the minister is so confident that his judgment was so superior to that of the independent departmental task force, why won't he release the reasons for his decisions?7712Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I would have thought minimum standards of literacy should be expected in this chamber. We have had the sort of tautology paraded that says `guidelines require', when everyone knows by definition guidelines do not require; they provide advice. I have had some legal advice on this issue and the position is quite clear. The Auditor-General's view is that we should comply with the requirements of the FOI Act. That act contains certain exemptions, like internal working documents, like business services. In other words, you comply with it to the extent that you are required to by the act.This was handled in the department—no interference by us. An independent decision is made and who didn't bother to appeal when he got knocked back? It just shows you. Couldn't he afford the $30? He could not even have asked for a remittance of it. He did not bother going ahead because he did not want to turn up at the AAT and get rolled. All that Senator Faulkner wanted to do was to play political games. (Time expired)77127712Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY O15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. The Minister for Finance and Administration recently announced the results of the pre-registration of Telstra 2. Minister, what has been the response of the Australian public to this new share offer and what does the further privatisation of Telstra mean to ordinary Australians?7712Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—This is more good news for Australia and I thank Senator Tierney for this very important question. Some 1.8 million Australians have reserved purchases for these shares in Telstra that we have recently announced. That is in addition to the 1.3 million existing Telstra shareholders. So we now have 3.1 million Australians, a quarter of all adult Australians, involved in this great process.Senator Forshaw interjecting—9X5Senator ELLISON—It is worth taking note of an aspect that Senator Forshaw might want to listen to. Some 10 per cent of those people seeking to own Telstra shares did so through the Internet for their pre-registration. Telstra finds itself in this new world of technology. It is great that people are using the Internet to avail themselves of this offer.What we are doing in this offer is bringing new people into ownership of shares, but we are also rewarding those people who took the plunge and already have Telstra shares. We will be offering a purchase of one share for five shares already held. If you have 3,000 Telstra shares, you will be able to purchase another 600. That is great news for people who already hold shares. But there is more to it than just that. In this Telstra 2 we have a new streamlined way of dealing with our bankers and the commission fees. Instead of the 23 bankers and brokers we dealt with previously, we are now dealing with 17. That has resulted in a $25 million saving in commissions.Senator Tierney mentioned the benefits for ordinary Australians. This government has a basic policy regarding the dream that the people of Australia have not only of ownership of a home but ownership of shares—participating in the ownership of a great company like Telstra. Another aspect to the privatisation of Telstra is the benefit to the Australian community as a whole. It will allow us to reduce debt. Earlier, we heard from Senator Kemp about how strongly the economy is going under the Howard government. The sale of Telstra will help us to pay off debt, to do away with interest payments which are a liability to the national economy.Not only will the 3.1 million Australians who already have an interest in Telstra benefit, but all Australians will benefit from the sale of Telstra because we will be able to keep interest rates low and look at tax cuts which will benefit the average Australian working man and woman. We will be able to use that money for infrastructure in rural and regional Australia, which can only be good news for this country. This is great news for Australia—not only for those people who are interested in owning shares but for the wider community.Of course, the opposition and those who are against the sale of Telstra fail to realise this. I say to senators who are against a further sale of Telstra: wake up and take notice of the benefits for all Australia which are contained in the privatisation of Telstra. Look at what we are offering average men and women—3.1 million people, a quarter of all Australian adults, may soon own Telstra shares, and some members of the opposition have also been involved.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Sensible ones.9X5Senator ELLISON—`Sensible ones', says Senator Macdonald. We are saying, think of the wider benefits for Australia and the national economy and the strengths which we are enjoying at the moment, which Senator Kemp referred to earlier. Let us keep Australia going forward and let us push forward the privatisation of Telstra.77137713Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Can the minister confirm the information he provided at estimates that final decisions on federation cultural and heritage projects were taken at a meeting between him and Senator Hill on or about 27 August last year, that no departmental officials were present, that there was no departmental note taker and that staffers made, as he put it to Fran Kelly this morning, `sufficient record to provide reasons for the decisions'? What form did the `sufficient record' take? Is it maintained in the minister's office or the department? Is it available for examination by the Auditor-General?7713Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thought we had gone over this ground many times before as well.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—We haven't.LD4Senator ALSTON—Haven't we. Then let us go back to the beginning and explain how the process worked. It was not up to the department to make final decisions. The department was there to provide ratings. They put numbers alongside projects and the joint task force, comprised of officials from both my department and from Senator Hill's department, provided that advice. We also had advice from the National Council for the Centenary of Federation. From that point on, there was no involvement required or expected of the department or indeed of anyone else from the outside who might have wanted to offer advice, gratuitous or otherwise. It follows that it would have been quite superfluous for officials of the department to have been present when we were making decisions.We did in fact provide written reasons for our decisions, which are contained in the material which was the subject of Senator Faulkner's FOI request. I find it rather surprising that he bothered to go to the trouble of submitting an application under the FOI Act, presumably because—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: the minister is not attempting to answer the question I asked. I asked what form the so-called `sufficient record' took; I asked whether it was maintained in the minister's office or the department; and I asked whether it was available for examination by the Auditor-General. I did not ask for Senator Alston's comments on the other extraneous matters, inaccurate as they might be. It is an important question that goes to accountability and transparency and I ask you to direct the minister to answer it.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—On the point of order, Madam President: I do not know how many times Senator Faulkner has taken this type of point of order when the minister answering the question has had only a minute out of four minutes to answer. It is an abuse of process to consistently interrupt ministers with a point of order when we know what you are going to say. You cannot direct the minister as to how to answer the question. To say that he has not answered it when he has had only one quarter of the time available to him is clearly an abuse of process and should not be allowed to continue.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The minister is dealing with the issue that has been raised and has time to continue to do so.LD4Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam President. It is also significant that in that long recital of what Senator Faulkner thinks should be responded to he omitted to mention the fact that he had asked me whether departmental officials were present. Of course, I was in the process of explaining that there was no need for them to be present.The reality is that Senator Faulkner has been caught short. He is excruciatingly embarrassed by the fact that it is now plain to all the world that the Labor Party regards this as a bit of an in-house joke. This is no longer a serious policy issue and if you did not need the 16 tipping shonks competition forms to know that, you only have to look at the approach taken under FOI.Senator Faulkner asked what record was kept—presumably the reasons for the decision—and, once again, I was in the process of explaining that there was a record. That is the very thing that Senator Faulkner sought to obtain under freedom of information. But, of course, he has a very short concentration span. Having been knocked back, he did not bother appealing. In other words, he did not pursue his legal rights. He was not interested in due process. He decided, presumably, that this was just something that ought to be kicked around in the public arena—it was a political issue, not a legal issue—and that is how it was going to be played. That is how it has been played out ever since. Apart from getting someone on the Sydney Morning Herald to give this a bit of a kick along every so often, it was exposed long ago as having no legs. I am waiting for Senator Faulkner to invite me to table the document because I did read from it very carefully. I would be more than happy to accommodate him if he sought that. That very document says it all. This is not a serious policy issue; this is a tipping contest; this is a game to be played by those who have no policy ideas.7714Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, in relation to the meeting between yourself and Minister Hill on 27 August last year, how was the record kept of decisions taken at the meeting? How was the record kept? What form did that record of decisions take? Is it maintained in the minister's office or in the department? Is it available for examination by the Auditor-General?7714Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I note that Senator Faulkner forgot to ask me to table the document. I will overlook that lapse of memory. He did claim the other day that he was interested in due process. That is really what this whole issue is about: were records kept; were they provided; are they accessible to the Auditor-General; are they available under FOI, subject to the exemptions provided in the legislation? Beyond that, of course Senator Faulkner is entitled to have a go—if he wants to try and get a bit more minutiae, if he wants to put it on the table and have a bit more of a run.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Why don't you answer the question?LD4Senator ALSTON—If you do not think it is relevant, I will not bother.77147714Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON 1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to his decision yesterday to allow Telstra to charge for directory assistance calls from mobile and business phone users. I ask the minister: what will this cost small business, and how long will it be before the government allows Telstra to charge residential users for 013 calls?7714Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am delighted to get a serious policy question. The answer is that the majority of small businesses will pay around 40c per month. The reason it is important that this initiative be pursued is that some large businesses were making hundreds of calls a day on the 013 line. In fact, nine of them were making more than 200 calls a day. One small business was recorded as making 1,730 calls per month to directory assistance, while there were 11 other small business users making over 200 free calls per month—like call centres.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Maybe they needed assistance.LD4Senator ALSTON—Yes, like debt collectors. They need all the help they can get, don't they? Call centres, finance companies, auction houses—these are businesses that basically build it into their business plan. The fact that this service has been free until now is something that businesses, which can well afford to pay for it, were simply taking advantage of, to the detriment of many other callers. In fact, more than 50 per cent of mobile subscribers already pay directory assistance charges because they are either Optus or Vodaphone subscribers. They charge 40c. It seems only reasonable to me that Telstra should do the same.Small businesses will not be disadvantaged in any shape or form. Six out of 10 small business lines made no calls to directory assistance over the two-month period April to May this year, which was the period of the sample. Of those who used directory assistance, 64 per cent made fewer than three calls per month; seven per cent made over 10 calls per month and accounted for 54 per cent of calls by small business to directory assistance. Most importantly, 48 per cent of small businesses are connected to the Internet. So they have the capacity to go online and access White Pages without any additional charge. I think it is perfectly plain that this is a reform that was long overdue. I was particularly interested to see that the shadow minister did not rule out the Labor Party doing precisely the same thing in their next term of government. Had we not done it, Labor clearly would have.There is all the difference in the world between charging businesses and mobile users and residential customers. Almost all businesses and mobile users, by definition, can afford to pay. We have excluded the disabled, the not-for-profit organisations, the charities and the payphones; in other words, all those who deserve special consideration. I would have thought that most mobile phone users probably do not even realise that it has been a free service until now. There is all the difference in the world between businesses and mobile users and residential.We would take a very different approach if and when we were ever asked to consider the matter. We have not. But the minister of the day has a legal obligation to consider matters that are put before him. All I can say is that that is not on the agenda. It is certainly not, in any shape or form, under consideration, and I have no reason to think that it ever will be. Certainly, I think this is a reform that took a bit of political courage—not much. Nonetheless, it is something that the Labor Party could have done in 13 years but simply never got around to doing. It is a sensible reform. It will ensure that we come into line with other telcos overseas. We have some important trade-offs. Now 70 per cent of calls will be answered within 10 seconds as a matter of commitment, which I think is very important.AW5CARRSenator Carr—When will we see that?LD4Senator ALSTON—You will see that. In fact, you will hear it if you tune in. (Time expired)7715Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask a supplementary question. Again I ask the minister about residential users on 013. Can he categorically assure the Senate that these will not be charged? Further, the minister's press release says that all phone users contribute to subsidising the directory assistance service. If this is the case, how much does the minister expect other charges to fall as a result of the charges being applied to 013 calls?7715Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—This is simply part of the business mix. If Telstra makes more money from one area rather than another, it has the capacity to reduce prices in a whole range of areas. Does Senator Allison think we are going to get out there and tell Telstra that they should bring down prices in one particular area just because they have at long last been able to recoup the cost of these services? Bear in mind that residential users take up about 46 per cent of the calls. There are currently 440 million calls a year to directory assistance. That number has gone up 40 million in the last 12 months. So it is a very significant impost on Telstra. It does not provide them with any incentive at all to make that service efficient. However, once you make it a commercial activity, you encourage others to come into the business. That will hopefully bring down prices of this very service, as has happened with people like scoop.com in the UK and as I am sure will happen elsewhere. (Time expired)77167716Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The minister has claimed that he and Senator Hill examined all the applications that were submitted on the FCHP, not just the 114 above 15 points. Does he also claim that that is a sufficient record—to use his words—of the process? He claims a sufficient record of the process was maintained. I ask: does a record in fact exist? In what form does it exist? Is it written? Is it electronic? Is it on the back of a beer coaster? Is the record in existence and is it available to the Auditor-General?7716Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I can assure Senator Faulkner of one thing: it is not written on the back of a tipping competition form. There is an extraordinary non sequitur in that question. The proposition was that Senator Hill and I claim to have examined all the eligible projects, not just the 114. Is there a record? Is there a sufficient record? All I can say is that examinations of documents are usually visual. So to ask me whether there is a record of us visually examining is presumably asking me whether we had a camera present. I do not remember any of the networks being invited and I certainly do not remember anyone in the room thinking it was such an important occasion that it deserved to be memorialised for all time. If we had known that there was going to be a tipping competition and there might be some prizes handed out, maybe—and this is only with the benefit of hindsight—we could perhaps have arranged for a photographer to be present. Unfortunately, we did not. All I can say is that you will just have to take my word for it that Senator Hill and I actually did our homework. We did look at a whole range of projects—well beyond the call of duty, I might say. If the real issue is who examined the projects, I want to know when you are going to get out there, get on shanks's pony and have a look at some of these projects. See what you think of them. You could actually have a bit of a guide on the tipping sheet. You could give them an indicative view of whether you think they stack up or not. You could look at the electorates that you do not like and mark them down and you could look at a few of your preferred marginals and tick them up. But the fact is you are not prepared to do your homework, are you? Madam President, they are simply not interested.Senator Carr interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, you are persistently interjecting.LD4Senator ALSTON—I hope Senator Carr has taken my advice from yesterday. He only has 24 days to go. I am sure that Mr Bracks would very much appreciate him staying in Canberra for the duration. Apart from Senator Carr having to stay here, there is no good reason why the rest of that crowd over there cannot get out and go and visit some of these projects. I am sure they will find all the councils very happy to take them around. You will probably find the local members, including the Labor members, particularly thrilled to explain the virtues of these projects. It is not a big ask, really, is it? You do not have to do much more than make a phone call. When you are working out how to fill in the next couple of weeks with nothing much on the program and none of the interest groups wanting to see you any more because you have nothing to offer—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you are straying from the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—That is probably true, Madam President.7716Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I ask a supplementary question, Madam President. I will not take the minister's word for it. Neither, do I suspect, will the parliament or the public. So I ask: what sufficient record—to use the minister's words—was taken? How was that record taken? What form was it kept in? Who took the record, Minister? Is that record available for examination by the Auditor-General?7717Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is getting very, very repetitive, isn't it? I thought I had explained, in tedious detail, that if the question was, `Is there a record of Senator Hill and me examining the projects?' then I suppose we could ask our staff whether they have a vivid recollection of watching Senator Hill. Maybe some of them were looking over his shoulder.AW5CARRSenator Carr—So it's memory now, is it?LD4Senator ALSTON—That is not really the point at issue. The point is whether we did in fact examine projects, whether we did make judgments and whether we provided decisions and reasons for them. And we did all of the above.77177717Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the work of Dr Joel Brind, Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College, City University, New York and an international authority on the link between abortion and increased risk of breast cancer? Is the minister aware of the epidemiological and biological evidence of such a link? Have the minister and his department considered the serious implications of this for public health policy and practice, and the possible future legal action by women for whom the risk was not disclosed? What are the minister and the department doing to ensure women are fully informed of the potential risk? Has the minister considered adding reproductive history to the current breast screening mammogram survey, using a coded recorded linked process to maintain privacy, so as to obtain a fuller picture of a possible connection and the need for provision of information to potentially at-risk women?7717Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Harradine for the question; it is a very serious question. The minister advises that there is no consistent evidence that demonstrates a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion. Expert advice indicates that almost all the studies on induced abortion and risk of breast cancer are case controlled studies which have produced conflicting results. Many of the articles that support a link are old, and more recent articles question the methodologies employed in these studies. More recent studies indicate little support for the hypothesis that induced abortion increases breast cancer risk overall or in particular subgroups. Michaels and Willett in Epidemiology September 1996 reviewed evidence to better understand the apparent inconsistencies and concluded:Studies to date are inadequate to infer with confidence the relation between induced or spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk, but it appears that any such relation is likely to be small or non-existent.The government provides funding to the BreastScreen Australia program to reduce mortality and morbidity from breast cancer through early detection. It also provides funding to the National Breast Cancer Centre. The National Breast Cancer Centre has recently conducted a review of the data on induced abortion and increased risk of breast cancer, and the National Breast Cancer Centre's view is that a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer has not yet been established. In the event that new research on this issue emerges, the National Breast Cancer Centre will analyse it and make the findings readily available to women and health professionals as part of its ongoing role.The women's longitudinal study being conducted through Newcastle University and funded by the Commonwealth is another source of data on the possible link between induced abortion and breast cancer in the medium to long term. The study involves over 40,000 Australian women and it will explore a range of health and health related issues. This study is designed to follow young, middle-aged and older women for up to 20 years and will address gaps in knowledge about women's health.Senator Harradine has suggested that BreastScreen Australia ask women to provide details of their reproductive history. The feasibility of this idea will be considered by the National Advisory Committee for BreastScreen Australia. This committee provides policy advice to the Commonwealth and state and territory health ministers on BreastScreen Australia. In considering this issue the committee will need to consider the Privacy Act 1998 and the information privacy principles which govern the collection of personal data within government programs. Under these principles, information on a woman's reproductive history could only be collected if that information is considered directly related to the purpose of the BreastScreen Australia program. I have already mentioned one of the references in Epidemiology September 1996; there are other references that I could refer Senator Harradine to.7718Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Having regard to what the minister mentioned in the last part of his answer, could the minister have any references that he has on the abortion-breast cancer connection incorporated in Hansard ?7718Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am happy to do that, Madam President. I seek leave to incorporate the list of articles.Leave granted.The list read as follows—1. Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, Rosario I, Gray GE. Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer 1981;43:72-6.2. Brinton LA, Hoover R, Fraumeni JF Jr. Reproductive factors in the aetiology of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1983;47:757-62.3. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Kaufman DW, Strom BL, Schottenfeld D, Shapiro S. Breast Cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:981-9.4. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Interest J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-4.5. Laing AE, Demenais FM, Williams R, Kissling G, Chen VW, Bonney GE. Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: The Howard University Tumor Registry experience. J Natl Med Assoc 1993;85:931-9.6. Laing AE, Bonney GE, Adams-Campbell L, et al. Reproductive and lifestyle factors for breast cancer in African-American women. Genet Epidemiol 1994;11:A300.7. Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Institution 1994;86:1584-92.8. Daling JR, Brinton LA, Voigt LF, et al. Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:373-80.9. Newcomb PA, Storer BE, Longnecker MP, Mittendorf R, Greenberg ER, Willett WC. Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer. JAMA 1996;275:283-7.10. Wu AH, Ziegler RG, Pike MC, et al. Menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer in Asian-Americans. Br J Cancer 1996;73:680-6.11. Palmer JR, Rosenberg L, Sowmya Rao R, et al. Induced abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer (United States) Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:841-9.12. Moseson M, Koenig KL, Shore RE, Pasternak BS. The influence of medical conditions associated with hormones on the risk of breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1993;22:1000-9.13. Segi M, Fukushima I, Fujisaku S, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN 1957;48(Suppl):1-63.14. Watanabe H, Hirayama T. Epidemiology and clinical aspects of breast cancer. Nippon Rinsho 1968;26:1853-9 (in Japanese).15. Dvoirin VV, Medvedev AB. Role of women's reproductive status in the development of breast cancer. In: Methods and progress in breast cancer epidemiology research, Tallin, 1978. Moscow: Oncology Science Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1978;53-63 (in Russian).16. Burany B. Gestational characteristics in women with breast cancer. Jugosl Ginekol Opstet 1979;19:237-47 (in Serbo-Croatian).17. Nishiyama F. The epidemiology of breast cancer in Tokushima prefecture. shikoku Ichi 1982;38:333-43 (in Japanese).18. Le M-G, Bachelot A, Doyon F, Kramar A, Hill C. Oral contraceptive use and breast or cervical cancer: Preliminary results of a French case-control study. In: Wolff J-P, Scott JS, eds. Hormones and sexual factors in human cancer aetiology. Amsterdam:Elsevier, 1984:139-47.19. Hirohata T, Shigematsu T, Nomura AMY, Nomura Y, Horie A, Hirohata I. Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: A case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan. Natl Cancer Institution Monogr 1985;69:187-90. 20. Ewertz M, Duffy SW. Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark. Br J Cancer 1988;58:99-104.21. Adami H-O, Bergstrom R, Lund E, Meirik O. Absence of association between reproductive variables and the risk of breast cancer in young women in Sweden and Norway. Br J Cancer 1990;62:122-6.22. La Vecchia C, Negri E, Franceschi S, Parazzini F. Long-term impact of reproductive factors on cancer risk. Int J Epidemiol 1993;53:215-9.23. Andrieu N. Clavel F, Gairard B, et al. Familial risk of breast cancer and abortion. Cancer Detect Prev 1994;18:51-5.24. Lipworth L, Katsouyanni K, Ekborn A. Michels KB, Trichopoulos D. Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece. Int J Cancer 1995;61:181-4.25. Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: Reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. J Natl Cancer Institution 1996;88:1759-64.26. Bu L, Voigt L, Yu Z, Malone K, Daling J. Risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion in a population at low risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:S85 (abstract 337).27. Talamini R, Franceschi S, La Vecchia C, et al. The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A:303-10.28. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-5.29. Luporsi E, 1988, in Andrieu N, Duffy SW, Rohan TE, Le MG, Luporsi E, Gerber M, Renaud R, Zaridze DG, Lifanova Y, Day NE. Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies. Br J Cancer 1995;72:744-51.30. Rohan TE, 1988, in #29 above.31. Zaridze DG, 1995, in #29 above.32. White E, Daling JR, Norsted TL, Chu J. Rising incidence of breast cancer among young women in Washington State. J Natl Cancer Institution 1987;79:239-43.33. Krieger N. Exposure, susceptibility, and breast cancer risk: A hypothesis regarding exogenous carcinogens, breast tissue development, and social gradients, including black/white differences, in breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1990;13:205-223. 34. Remennick LI. Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:498-510.35. Harris B-ML, Eklund G, Meirik O, Rutqvist LE, Wiklund K. Risk of cancer of the breast after legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish regisster study. BMJ 1989;299:1430-2.36. Brind J, Chinchilli VM. letter re: Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1834.37. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. letter re: Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: Reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch casecontrol study. J Natl Cancer Institution 1997; 89:588-9.38. Harris JR, Lippman ME, Veronesi U, Willett W. Breast cancer (first of three parts), N Engl J Med 1992;327:319-28.39. Stewart DR, Overstreet JW, Nakajima ST, Lasley BL. Enhanced ovarian steroid secretion before implantation in early human pregnancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1993;76:1470-6.40. Kunz J, Keller PJ. HCG, HPL, oestradiol, progesterone and AFP in serum in patients with threatened abortion, Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976;83:640-4.41. Witt BR, Wolf GC, Wainwright CJ, Johnston PD, Thorneycroft IH. Relaxin, CA-125, progesterone, estradiol, Schwangerschaft protein, and human choirionic gonadotopin as predictors of outcome in threatened and non-threatened pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1990;53:1029-36.42. Macmahon B, Cole P, Lin TM et al. Age at first birth and breast cancer risk. Bull Wld Hlth Organise 1970;43:20921.43. Norman RJ, McLoughlin JW, Borthwick GM, Yohkaichiya T, Matthews CD, MacLennan AH, debate Kretser DM Inhibin and relaxin concentrations in early singleton, multiple, and failing pregnancy: relationship to gonadotropin and steroid profiles. Fertil Steril 1993;59:130-7.44. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:471-96.45. Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis II. Pregnancy interruption as a risk factor in tumor incidence. Am J Pathol 1980;100:497-512.46. Russo J. Rivera R Russo IH. Influence of age and parity on the development of the human breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1992;23:211-18.47. Gans JE, Coble YD, Estes EH Jr. et al. (Council on Scientific Affairs). American Medical Association Concil Report: Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. JAMA 1992;268:3231-9.48. Rosenberg L. Induced abortion and breast cancer: more scientific data are needed (editorial). J Natl Cancer Institution 1994;86:1569-70.49. Weed DL, Kramer BS. Induced abortion, bias, and breast cancer: why epidemiology hasn't reached its limit (editorial). J Natl cancer inst 1996;88:1698-1700.50. Hartge P. Abortion, breast cancer, and epidemiology (editorial). N Engl J Med 1997;336:126-8.51. Meirik O, Adami H-) Eklund G. letter re: Relation between induced abortion and breast cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:209.52. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs Wb, Summy-Long J. reply to letter re: Relation between induced abortion and breast cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:209-11.53. Fisher B, Constantino JB, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: Report of the HSABBP P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Institution 1998;90:1371-88.77207720Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister stand by his statement yesterday:Never at any stage was either department in the business of recommending or advising us on any particular project.Further, why was this so and how was it made clear to the two departments that they were not to recommend or advise ministers on any particular project? If the departmental submission was neither recommendation nor advice, what was it?7720Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thought I had made it clear that the task of the joint task force was to provide points on a rating basis out of 24. Once that information was provided to ministers, it was then open to them to make up their own minds. By drawing a line under the 114 projects that rated 15 points or more, the departments were not advising or recommending; they were simply indicating that, in their view, that quantity provided a sufficient pool from which ministers could make their selection. It was perfectly proper for them to present the material in that way, but at the end of the day what we wanted was a point score for each project. We got that and we made our decisions accordingly.7720Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that confirmation. Is the minister aware that one of the key criticisms that the Auditor-General made of the Community Facilities Program in 1993 was that the department did not make recommendations to the minister? Is the minister further aware that one of the recommendations of the House of Representatives committee report on the Auditor-General's efficiency audit of the Community Facilities Program, which had the full support of coalition members, was:In all future grants . . . the Department . . . ought to provide a schedule of applications that evaluates the proposed projects and contains recommendations to guide the Minister's decisions.I will repeat that for you, Minister:. . . and contains recommendations to guide the Minister's decisions.Minister, why were departmental recommendations so critical then, so fully supported by the coalition, but are so irrelevant now?7720Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The question was: was I aware? The answer is no.77207720Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is also to Senator Alston representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. In developing a legislative response to the AIRC junior rates report, will the government acknowledge, as the commission does, that age-based discrimination in determining wages is a serious issue and that a formal process for assessing discrimination will be needed in the Workplace Relations Act? Will the case by case assessments of junior rates be required to acknowledge that age-based discrimination is undesirable? And will Australia continue to share with the Nether lands the distinction of being virtually the only industrialised country to regard 19-, 20- and 21-year-old workers as juniors when it comes to pay rates, even though they are considered full adults for the purposes of most other legislation?7721Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think what Senator Stott Despoja is really asking me is: `Am I aware that at least she—and maybe others of her colleagues—take the view that we should not be particularly concerned about maximising the employment opportunities of young people and about the fact that many young people and their parents take the view that junior wage rates are a very important means of providing those opportunities?' The amended bill—I was going to say `which, to their credit, they support,' but they obviously looked at the opinion polls and decided they had no choice—which the Labor Party are supporting, removes the threat to junior rates and to youth jobs that has existed since 1993. It achieves this by permanently exempting junior rates from the age discrimination requirements of the act. This will protect the jobs of more than 220,000 young people in the retail industry alone.I do not know whether Senator Stott Despoja says, `Well, that really does not matter. We are not concerned about protecting their jobs. We somehow think that discrimination is where it starts and finishes. As long as you are not being discriminated against, we really don't care if you've got all day sitting on the sidelines to celebrate the fact that you are unemployed but not discriminated against.' So the amended bill goes beyond just protecting junior rates; it introduces, for the first time in workplace relations laws, objects which require the AIRC to protect the competitive position of young people in the labour market, to promote youth employment and to assist in reducing youth unemployment. In exercising its award making and other functions the commission will be required to further these objects to the benefit of the employment prospects of young people.Does Senator Stott Despoja disagree with any of that? Presumably she does, because she says, `Well, but that constitutes some form of discrimination. So I don't want the commission out there trying to provide them with jobs, because it might technically offend against some discrimination provision. I want their job prospects to depend entirely on whether they regard it themselves—or someone else regards it—as discrimination.' That is not the basis on which the commission will operate. It is not the basis on which this law will operate. It is not the basis on which the major parties in this parliament believe the law should operate.7721Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. While I appreciate the minister's rephrasing of my question, I would like to ask him again: will the government's legislative response to the AIRC's report involve a formal process for assessing discrimination in the Workplace Relations Act? Will the government also acknowledge, as the commission has done, that discrimination on the basis of age is a serious issue? I am wondering whether the minister has read the AIRC's report and whether he can acknowledge, for the benefit of the chamber, that that report does not unequivocally place a correlation between wage rates for juniors and employment prospects.7721Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yes, we do regard age discrimination as a serious issue. If people say, `You are performing brilliantly but you just happen to be over 65,' I do not think that is too fair. But if they say, `You're 17. You are doing a good job. We'd love to keep you on but you turn 18 next week. We have to pay you an extra 50 bucks and we cannot afford it,' I do not regard that as discrimination; I regard that as a rational response to the cost of labour.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Sack the young.LD4Senator ALSTON—You take a different view, do you, Senator Cook? What is this expression? Sack the gun? Is this something they trot out in the trades hall council. It is a new one on me.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—I raise a point of order on relevance, Madam President. In the time remaining, would the minister answer at least one question, and that is: will a formal process for assessing discrimination be included in the act? How are you going to assess discrimination, Minister, and will you include it in the act? Perhaps he could answer one element of my question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is not a point of order.LD4Senator ALSTON—I will say it again. The bill achieves this protection of youth wages and jobs by permanently exempting junior rates from the age discrimination requirements of the Workplace Relations Act.77227722Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to his previous answers and the fact that both departments did not make recommendations in relation to projects to be funded under the $70 million Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program but presented ministers with a list of 114 projects which ranked 15 points or above, which ministers then chose to ignore in the case of 16 selections. Does the minister recall that in March 1994 his colleague Senator Hill asked the following question in relation to the $30 million Community, Cultural, Recreation and Sporting Facilities Program:Why was this program not determined and administered in the usual way—that is, by the department making recommendations on agreed guidelines? Why did the minister politicise the program in this way?Would the minister care to answer the same question in respect of the FCHP program, for which he and his colleague Senator Hill have joint responsibility?7722Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—One, we were not provided simply with a list of 114 projects; we were provided with a list of a lot more than that. Did we choose to ignore what we were given? The answer is no. Do I recall Senator Hill asking a question in 1994? Many of them, but I do not think that one in particular.7722Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Why did departments not make recommendations in relation to this program? Was it under instruction from ministers?7722Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We have been through this endlessly. I have stated the facts of the matter and I have nothing more to add.77227722Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Is the minister aware of calls for the creation of a coastguard service in Australia? Can the minister inform the Senate what is the government's position in relation to the creation of a coastguard?7722Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Ferguson for the question. Yes, Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, recently said on radio that Australia should have a coastguard. Madam President, you might be interested to know that he went on to say:The image that would come with a coastguard would be a very substantial upgrade of—you really have to wait for this—an appearance of preparedness.All he wanted was an image of `appearance of preparedness'. The only thing of substance proposed was a `substantial upgrade of an appearance of preparedness'. His sentiments have been parroted by the shadow minister in the past.Coastal surveillance is a serious issue and it has to be taken seriously. If you want to contribute to the policy debate in a considered and well thought out manner, well and good, but if you just want a few appearances you will be judged accordingly. In their enthusiasm to get a grab on radio, Mr Beazley and Mr Kerr seem to have forgotten the Beazley report. The Beazley report was done in March 1984. It was a review of Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection arrangements. It was done by Kim C. Beazley, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Mr Beazley's own report makes it clear that a coastguard was not an efficient or a cost-effective option. Labor had 13 years in government and they did not establish a coastguard, because they knew, as the Beazley report made clear, that it was not an efficient or a cost-effective option. Now apparently they like the idea. They think it has got something going for it. This is a clear case of policy amnesia simply brought about by media starvation.People smuggling is a growing global problem. Canada, for example, in recent weeks has had two boatloads of Chinese illegal immigrants: one boatload of 134 and one of 123. The United States Coastguard has an annual budget of $US4 billion, and they still find it necessary to operate in tandem with other agencies. They protect a coastline of about 20,000 kilometres in length compared to our 37,000 kilometres.While the opposition sit there on the sideline carping away in their normal negative fashion to which we have become accustomed, the government has actually done something to properly handle the growing problem of people smuggling.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Australia is currently negotiating three extra protocols to add to the transnational crime convention dealing with these matters. The Prime Minister's recent task force announcement pumped an extra $124 million into combating people smuggling. That is not an upgrade of appearance; it is an upgrade in substance. It includes two new Dash 8 aircraft with sophisticated electronic surveillance, a night capable helicopter—Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, you are persistently interjecting. I invite you to read standing order 203.7E4Senator VANSTONE—And 12 new immigration officers in source and transit countries. Labor are languishing at the moment, simply lost at sea themselves. They seem to believe that their ill thought out, blustering rhetoric will fill their sails. Unfortunately for both Mr Beazley and Mr Kerr, hot air simply rises, and their calls for the introduction of a coastguard simply demonstrate their desperation to whip up a populist reaction to anything they can. The substance of the matter is that, as outlined in the Beazley report in 1984, it is not a cost-effective or efficient option.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice7723772315:04:007723Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Yesterday Senator Woodley asked me why Ansett Australia had withdrawn from the aircraft study being done by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Airconditioning Engineers. I have an answer which I would like to read part of.Ansett have provided advice that they agreed to participate in that project believing that it was officially endorsed by the Federal Aviation Administration of the USA. Ansett subsequently learned that this was not the case. Ansett could not spare the aircraft operationally because their priority focus was modifying the BAe 146 aircraft fleet to overcome the odour problem for the benefit of customers and staff. Ansett's BAe 146 modification program is so advanced that their fleet is not representative of the world's BAe 146 population and therefore not appropriate for the study of the type that was proposed by that American society.Ansett are one of 65 BAe 146 operators worldwide. It is true that Australia has a high number of reported problems, but Ansett inform me that that is because Ansett Australia is the only airline in the world that has a compulsory reporting program. I should also mention that, in a recent court hearing about Ansett's flight attendants' claims in relation to the BAe 146 fumes, the court accepted evidence that there was no toxicity in the fumes coming into the cabin. Ansett also advise me that they have demonstrated their complete commitment to corporate responsibility in this matter in ways unmatched by any other operator in Australia. In fairness to Ansett, I seek leave to incorporate the full text of the answer which they have given me.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Question 1Ansett Australia is one of 65 BAe 146 operators worldwide. Of those, five operate in Australia.Ansett Australiaoperates 11 BAe 146 aircraftNational Jet Servicesoperates 21Southern Airlinesoperates 2Airlinkoperates 12Australian Air Expressoperates 3If it is true that Australia has the highest number of reported problems, it may be because of the number of BAe 146 aircraft operating in Australia and because one of those operators, Ansett Australia, is the only airline in the world that has a compulsory reporting program.Question 2Ansett Australia has withdrawn from participating in a study being done by the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for three reasons1. Ansett agreed to participate in the project believing that it was officially endorsed by the Federal Aviation Administration of the USA Ansett subsequently learned that this is not the case2. Ansett could not spare the aircraft operationally because its priority focus was modifying the BAe 146 fleet to overcome the odour problem for the benefit of customers and staff.3. Ansetts BAe 146 modification program is so advanced that its fleet is not representative of the world's BAe 146s and therefore not appropriate for a study of the type proposed by ASHRAE.Question 3Ansett has demonstrated its complete commitment to corporate responsibility in this matter in ways unmatched by any other operator in Australia or overseas.. Ansett has proactively liaised with CASA and BASI on the issue.. Ansett aircraft modifications include engine and auxiliary power unit enhancements to prevent oil leaking into the air conditioning system and modifications to the air conditioning system to improve airflow in the cabin.. Ansett has rigorously collected and analysed data and can produce overwhelming medical evidence to confirm the safety of their aircraft fleet for crew and passengers.. Ansett will naturally continue to comply with all regulatory requirements. 772415:06:007724Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have an answer for a question that Senator Brown asked on 23 August relating to the possibility of funds being directed through the World Bank to a proposed diversion of a river in China. I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Answer to question to Senator Hill from Senator Brown 23 August 1999:Is any Australian money directly or indirectly going via the World Bank to the proposed diversion of the Xiangride River in Tibet for an irrigation project?. No Australian aid funds are being or have been, used directly in support of this project.. The project forms part of the World Bank funded Western Poverty Reduction Project.. The Government regards the Western Poverty Reduction Project as having strong poverty alleviation benefits and the necessary safeguards.. Therefore, as a member of the World Bank Executive Board, Australia expressed support for funding of the project when it was considered on 24 June.. Australia contributes around 1.5% of the resources of the International Development Association (the Bank's soft loan arm) and the World Bank's capital base. These contributions are pooled by the World Bank and used in support of its lending for projects such as this.772415:06:007724Faulkner, 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 Lundy, Evans, Faulkner, Forshaw and Conroy today, relating to the distribution of funds for the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program.Yesterday we had Senator Alston indicate that the departments' ranking process for the Federation Fund FCHP Program was both `gratuitous' and `arbitrary'. That is a very unfair way of describing what I was thought was a scrupulous and professional assessment process that the two departments put in place in response to the Auditor-General's guidelines and the way that discretionary grant schemes should be administered. Senator Alston said the 15-point cut-off was `arbitrary' and `gratuitous' and then he said, `Not only is it arbitrary and gratuitous, at no point does either department recommend or advise on any particular project.'What is the truth? The departments recommended 114 projects above the 15-point mark, projects with strong heritage or cultural significance. They concluded that the sponsoring organisations could sustain the projects, and Senator Alston's 14 August departmental advisory minute says that its purpose is `to provide you with a list of highly rated . . . projects from which to select' and recommends that `you consult with Minister Hill' on, and select a group of, projects totalling $70.4 million; list attached. That is not gratuitous. That is not arbitrary. The departments were trying to save Ministers Alston and Hill from themselves. The ministers ignored that minute, overturned proper process and have been caught out. Of course, if everything was aboveboard the ministers would release the list of the 16 projects that did not meet the departments' 15-point threshold, and they would release their reasons for backing the 16 projects that did not make the grade.Now we have more questions on the decision making process of the ministers. When the ministers chose to ignore that 14 August minute, they plunged themselves into really deep water. They are really in trouble. Senator Alston will not give any details. He will not tell us how this was done. We know it was done behind closed doors with no departmental officials present. We know that no formal minutes were taken. We do not know what the record of decisions was. We do not know which political advisers were present. We do not know who, if anyone, took notes at the meeting. We do not even know if any notes exist. We do not know—if they do exist—if they are in electronic form or written form or, as I said in question time, on the back of a beer coaster. Senator Alston will not front up and provide that information to the Senate.We do not know what else was in the room. I suspect a few electoral pendulums, a highlighter pen, a bit of butcher's paper and a pad of yellow post-it notes were probably in the room—but who knows? Was the member for Dunkley in the room? We do not know, but what we do know is that decisions were made that meant that 33 out of 39 election announcements were made for grants that went to coalition seats. We are entitled—the parliament is entitled—to have answers to these questions.Senator Alston, in question time today, could not provide those answers. He could not tell this parliament how these decisions were made, who was responsible and how the records were kept—and he has to provide that. He could not even tell us whether this information is available to the Auditor-General and where the records are kept, whether in the minister's office or in the department. We have a real Federation Fund fiddle on our hands here and some time these ministers will have to front up and provide this information to the parliament and the Australian people. (Time expired)15:11:007725Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Once again we are seeing how the ALP have completely dealt themselves out of the game in this chamber. Time and time again we hear the broken record from across the chamber, one that just keeps repeating itself in circles of nothingness. Since the last sitting period the ALP have sought to make some sort of issue, one that has no legs to it, out of grants made for the benefit of the Australian community. It is a sort of obsession—I suppose one would say a perseveration—and I was sitting here wondering why they had decided to continue today, after three days of question time and part of question time in the House of Representatives, and I thought they might do well to read the book by Barbara Tuchman, March of Folly .In that book she talks about how, with various governments over the ages—from Troy right through to America and Vietnam—a group gets caught up with an issue and it cannot let go; it is a march of folly. So I was sitting here thinking this is exactly the sort of thing that we see on the other side—a march of folly. They have got hooked into it, they cannot get out of it, they are on a cycle and they go round and round in this never-ending circle, pursuing—as in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark—a snark, something that does not exist. That is all that they are doing, and it is amazing.We know that the Labor Party have nothing, that they have no policies and that they cannot actually focus on anything. All they can do is waste their time setting up a tipping competition as to which of the 16 projects were decided, as they claim, by the ministers. If that is all they can do—using their time and equipment to set up a tipping competition and then to be so stupid as to fax that out so we have a copy of it—then it really makes one wonder.The facts of the matter are that the appropriate procedures were pursued. All of the 60 successful projects were eligible. As well as taking into account the evaluations of the task group of the national council, the ministers took into account the need to find a balance of cultural and heritage projects, a balance of projects in each state and territory, and a balance of projects in inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional areas. The ministers were not provided with a list of recommended projects; they were provided with all the information so that they could select worthwhile projects, taking these objectives into account.Of the 60 successful projects 38, or 64 per cent, were located in 62 per cent of electorates held by the coalition. I am just repeating what has been said over and over here and in the other place. Eighteen, or 30 per cent, were in 33 per cent of seats held by Labor. Three, or five per cent, were in the five per cent of seats held by Independents and one project went across multiple electorates.They can go on and on. The Prime Minister has said in the other House that he has no objections and that the Auditor-General will look into the issue, that the National Audit Office will look into it. The Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program was developed on the basis of the National Audit Office Better practice guide for the administration of grants document. The Auditor-General will consider this matter, and I am sure we will be vindicated and it will be demonstrated that the Labor Party have done nothing but engage in a mindless exercise.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I see Senator Ray has come back into the chamber; I thought he had left. I thought that at least we might have seen his guiding hand in the questions committee and that he might actually have pulled the Labor Party back from this ridiculous exercise of wasting their time in this chamber going over and over this issue. I have almost run out of things to say because what had to be said has been said over and over by Senator Alston over the past three question times. In fact, before the last sitting period the Labor Party were going on about this issue. I really think that some of the people on the other side need to take Senator Faulkner in hand and actually defocus his mind and get him out of this perseveration that he is engaged in. Those of us who have some background in that area know what the symptoms of perseveration are: he cannot actually get off this issue and move onto issues that really concern the Australian people. One of the things that concerns the Australian people is whether the Labor Party have any policies. The answer to that is no, they have no policies, so what they are doing is continuing this exercise. (Time expired)15:16:007726Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VICALP00—The exercise that Senator Hill and Senator Alston went through in choosing these particular projects was tacky, politically opportunistic and pork-barrelling at its worst. It is probably not a matter over which you would say that they should be removed from office but, as always in politics, it is the cover-up that is the greater crime than the original sin, and that is what we are going through today. If everything is on the up and up as Senator Alston says, why not release the departments' recommendations and evaluations? Why not put on the public record the ministers' reasons for choosing particular projects and ignoring others? But, of course, they are into the cover-up.The fact is that I do not want ministers to become ciphers of their departments. I believe they should have some right to choose over a series of projects and pick particular ones, but it should be done on the basis of intellectual rigour, not on crass political opportunism. It should not be done on that particular basis. We have had a wide range of reasons as to why these recommendations and the ministerial alterations will not be put on the public record. Senator Hill at the estimates committee said that he did not want to embarrass anyone. His first response was that it would be embarrassing to say which ones were below 15 points. I will tell you: those who got $1 million or $2 million in grants do not mind that sort of embarrassment. They would rather have the money; they would not mind.The second reason, not put out by Senator Hill but by his office a week ago, is that these things are commercial in confidence. What absolute rubbish; of course they are not! These sorts of grants are not commercial in confidence, and that was a grubby exercise by his office in backgrounding the press. But what do we get as the ultimate insult? Senator Alston's explanation: `It's cabinet in confidence.' These matters went nowhere near cabinet. How could they be cabinet in confidence? They have sought to avoid these issues at estimates committees. They have been evasive at question time, and Senator Alston has bordered on buffoonery. Now they are rejecting FOI requests in this particular area. The cover-up is there. But this went nowhere near cabinet, and claiming cabinet in confidence is a confidence trick, and nothing more than that.I would like to know who was in the room when the decisions were made on 27 August last year, I think it was. All departmental officials were cleared out because the fix was going to be put in by the good old boys. They were cleared out of the room. The acolytes from the ministers' office staff were brought in and it was like a papal election—no-one knows the details. When you made your decisions, did you actually record the reasons why this project was favoured, and what did you record them on? There are no minutes of the meeting, as we understand. But if you were following the Auditor-General's guidelines, there must have been some reasons recorded as to why one particular grant was favoured over another one. But four times today Senator Alston was asked that, and he could not answer it. I suspect he scuttled back to his office to find out, because if that record existed and has been disappeared, that particular minister is in big trouble.The other reason we know this was not cabinet in confidence is that, having made their decision, they sent it off to the Prime Minister. What did the Prime Minister do? He signed off on all these grants on the day he called the election. We do not know whether he signed off on them before he called the election or after the election. That is basically irrelevant in terms of the Westminster Convention because that is after the issue of the writs. But the whole thing was brought forward to pork-barrel electorates, and proper approaches and processes were not adopted. If the government want to prove us wrong, they should table the information, they should do so voluntarily and they should not be pressured into it, either by the Auditor-General or a return to order in the Senate. (Time expired)15:21:007727Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—The trouble with the Labor Party is that they believe everyone sinks to their own low standards. Need I remind the Senate of former minister Ros Kelly's infamous whiteboard and her `sports rorts' grants. Today the Labor Party are calling the kettle black. The real difference is that the Liberal Party do not operate on the same basis as the Labor Party did when they were in government. The Liberal Party in government act with appropriate propriety in making their decisions. They do not engage in the style of Labor governments, based on the sorts of rorts that we saw with the whiteboard exam ple, when they are entrusted with the responsibility of government.The first thing the Labor Party said on this issue was that the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program was part of the Liberal government's marginal seats campaign. Senator Faulkner, in a press release on 11 August, said:The Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects fund became the Liberal Party marginal seat investment fund.What absolute nonsense! As Senator Patterson has already pointed out, when you look at the way in which these grants have been allocated to electorates, you find that 64 per cent of them were allocated to the 62 per cent of the electorates held by Liberal and National Party members, 30 per cent of them were allocated to those 33 per cent of seats held by the Labor Party, five per cent were allocated to the five per cent of seats held by Independents, while one project went across electorates.If you look at it even closer than that, you absolutely destroy the Labor Party's assertion that these grants relate to marginal seats. If you look at the Labor seats that received these grants, you will find that virtually all of them were safe Labor seats. Grants went to the seats of Sydney, Melbourne, Corio, Canberra, Fraser, Reid, Prospect, Batman, Denison, Port Adelaide and Perth—all safe Labor seats. To suggest that the government used these grants as part of their marginal seats campaigning strategy is absolute nonsense. If you look at the electorates to which the grants were made, it simply reinforces the nonsense of the Labor Party's claim.The other argument put forward by the Labor Party to support their allegations against the government was that the announcements of these grants were a breach of the caretaker provisions of the election. Certainly there were some projects announced during the 1998 election campaign, but this was not a breach of the caretaker provisions, which state that significant decisions should not be made during an election campaign. The decisions in relation to these grants were made well before the election campaign and were merely announced during the caretaker period.But again we see the Labor Party calling the kettle black. What happened during the 1996 election? Senator Faulkner—the prime mover of these allegations—announced grants for the River Murray Corridor of Green Projects. He announced that the then Labor government was to take the international lead in albatross conservation. He announced a new bureau of environmental economics. He announced a financial agreement for the Sydney 2000 Paralympics, and on and on the list goes. I assume—and I am giving the Labor government of the time the benefit of the doubt—that the decisions in relation to those announcements had been made before the 1996 election was announced, and these were merely announcements of previously made decisions. I will give the Labor Party the benefit of the doubt on that.In the case of the Liberal-National Party government in 1998, all of these decisions in relation to the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program were made prior to the election being announced. It was only the announcements that were made during the campaign, exactly as was done by the previous Labor government in 1996. Let us have none of this nonsense that either this program was some form of marginal seats campaign by the coalition government or it was a breach of the caretaker provisions during an election campaign. The fact is that these grants are highly beneficial to the Australian community. They are worthy, and they have been decided on a proper and appropriate basis. If you look at the range of projects, they are well worthy of funding, and the decision to grant them in each case was fully justified. (Time expired)15:26:007728Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—We are here today debating the answers given in question time. Today we have seen one of the most pitiful displays by one of the most lazy ministers that this chamber has ever seen. He is an absolute dilettante. This is a bloke that is a serial offender.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please do not reflect upon other members of this place.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Certainly. This minister is a serial offender. We well remember the time he signed off on a cabinet submission without having read it and put it into cabinet. It appears he has done it again. Senator Faulkner has already referred to the departmental minute to both Senators Hill and Alston, which reads as follows:Purpose:To provide you with a list of highly rated cultural/heritage and heritage projects from which to select for funding under the FCHP.It goes on to say:As per the departmental assessment guidelines agreed by you on 9 July 1998, the department's assessment process is now complete.It goes on to say:Using the agreed assessment procedure, all projects on this list scored 15 and above and also meet the specific heritage and cultural criteria outlined in the program guidelines.The ministers are trying to pretend that the Labor Party has made up the criteria—that the Labor Party has claimed that some projects were below the line and some were above the line. It needs to be absolutely understood by anybody listening or watching today that the recommendations on the front page of the minute of 7 July 1998 state:Recommendation:That you consult with Minister Hill—this is the one to Senator Alston—as co-coordinator of the FCHP to:. endorse the attached Departmental Guidelines for the administration of the FCHP program and the proposed timeline;Endorse Yes/No`Yes' is circled for both Senators Hill and Alston. They signed it off. There is a departmental procedure. What are some of the points contained? These are the points that Senator Alston continues to pretend do not exist. He has stood here and, in my view, misled the chamber consistently this week; he has absolutely misled the chamber.Point two:The Prime Minister's letter of 18 May 1998 highlighted the need for the Department to consult the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in the finalisation of the guidelines and arrangements for the FCHP. The ANAO would not comment on the final kits as this would compromise its audit role. However, the Office did advise the Federation Task Group (FTG), set up to administer the FCHP, to seek Ministerial guidance on the proposed departmental guidelines . . . So they said, `Go and ask the ministers.' This is what they came back with:. . . the FTG has carefully considered the ANAO's `Better Practice Guide for the Administration of Grants' and drafted a set of Departmental Guidelines for your endorsement. The ANAO's key concern is that the `design of the grant program should ensure that decisions in relation to the approval or refusal of applications for grants are transparent and well-documented'. A copy of the proposed Departmental Guidelines is at Attachment A. We seek your endorsement . . . Do not believe for a minute that these ministers are in a position where they can stand up and say, `There are no guidelines; the department just gave us advice willy-nilly.' There is a set of guidelines, signed off and endorsed by Senators Hill and Alston. What do the guidelines say? At point No. 10:A Panel of three FTG officers using the method described in this document will assess all applications. The Panel will conduct a formal assessment but may consult other experts for advice. The source and nature of advice will be fully documented.Point 12:The assessment process will not change over time.Point 13:The panel will assess all proposals and rate them in four categories: very high, high, medium, low.Then there is another tier of accountability and transparency—the reference group. Then they come to a flow chart within the guidelines. Senator Hill, we ask the government: where in this flow chart is the meeting where you kicked the departmental officers out? Did you and your advisers hold the meeting here? Did you hold it at Menzies House? Did Lynton have to come here to tell you which ones were the marginal seats? Where is the accountability? Where are the minutes? We want to know. This is a disgraceful cover-up. You are lazy and incompetent, Senator—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, would you please address the chair, and not reflect upon any members in this chamber.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Madam Deputy President, I withdraw any reflection that was adverse. (Time expired)15:31:007730McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—As we are on air at this very moment, there is one thing you cannot say about Senator Alston and that is that he is lazy.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—He is a lazy dilettante, and you know it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, you have had your chance.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Come on—give credit where credit is due. He is a minister who has carried at least three portfolios into cabinet. He is a senior minister. He is one of the most industrious we have, and we all know that he is a pretty good political hitter, because boy does he slap you around during question time—the whole lot of you over there. 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, will you please address the chair.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, you would have to concede that one thing Senator Alston is not is lazy. We from the government are quite happy that you myopically go on with this particular issue question time after question time. But for all the questions you have asked—dozens and dozens of questions, repeating them in all sorts of different forms—the only expose we have had on this particular issue is how frivolously you have taken it, that behind the scenes you really do consider this as a joke, as a filler until you can get your policies. But listening to Senator Sherry, they are not coming up until your next federal council, so you have a lot of filling to do.The fact that you are running a competition out of Senator Faulkner's office just shows how frivolous and what a joke this is. But I do ask Senator Faulkner: when this competition comes to an end and someone is lucky enough to win a prize of dinner for two with Mr Beazley down at Kingston or a medal to hang around his neck, could you please publish the results? We would be happy to know what the entrants thought were the 16 so-called shonky projects.2M6COONANSenator Coonan—Can we go into the competition?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—I have just been asked by my colleague next to me whether we can go into the competition, too. Why don't you open it up to the whole parliament? Let us know from your side of the chamber which 16 you really think might be shonky. As has been asked in this parliament many times, are the shonky ones in fact from the seat of Sydney? Are they from Tanya Plibersek's Labor electorate—the restoration of the Great Synagogue? We hear nothing from the member for Melbourne. Does Lindsay Tanner think his particular federation project—the restoration of the famous Melbourne Polly Woodside; that big tourist attraction—was in fact shonky? Perhaps the member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis, and his staff may tick off in this competition that his project—the restoration of the naval stores—may have been shonky.The point is that all 60 projects have been published. You know the 60, so why don't you name the 16 that you think are shonky? In fact, this competition is going to name the 16, so let us see the results of this competition. Let us see what that side of the chamber believes are in fact the 16 shonky projects. It is not too much to ask, for heaven's sake.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—They'll cancel them, will they?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Ian Campbell, you can bet that not one will come out of a Labor electorate. Not one project in a Labor electorate will be considered to be a shonky project. The truth of the matter is that a proper process has been undertaken. All 60 projects were legitimate, according to the Auditor-General's guidelines—so published after the whiteboard affair. The Auditor-General wrote his book about the better practice of federal grants when the other side were in government because the famous whiteboard project, which has now gone into political folklore, was so shonky that the laws had to be written down.I think we should rationally, calmly and factually put down what that process was. There were 741 projects and there was a criteria set down of six items, such as the significance of it, the lasting nature, the appropriateness for the Federation of Centenary Fund, et cetera. The department scored these 741 projects, narrowing them down. It has to be noted that, alongside this, the National Council of the Centenary of Federation also nominated a number of projects—the top projects. So there were two evaluations going on at the time it went up to the minister's office. As Senator Ray has pointed out, no-one—not the public, not your side of the chamber, Senator Crossin—believes that any minister should be a slave to his department, to the Public Service. In fact, that is one of the criticisms of politicians. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous773110000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yesterday I invited Senator Faulkner to withdraw the allegation that other senators had been guilty of `rorting'. Senator Faulkner disputed the suggestion that the expression is contrary to standing order 193 when used of senators and other office holders protected by that standing order, and I indicated that I would consider the matter.The term `rorting' has a range of meanings, from clever trickery or manipulation to embezzlement. Although it has been used without objection with reference to office holders protected under standing order 193, I think that, where it carries an implication of dishonesty or illegality, it ought to be regarded as unparliamentary just as any other expressions with that implication are so regarded.I thought that the expression as used by Senator Faulkner carried that implication, although, on looking at the Hansard record of his remarks, I find that he also referred to `pork-barrelling', which is not usually regarded as implying dishonesty or illegality. As with all questions of unparliamentary language, the chair will have regard to the context in which an expression is used to determine whether it is contrary to standing order 193.Notices77317731Senator Gibson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 30 August 1999, from 7.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Superannuation Contributions and Termination Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.Senator Chapman to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 1 September 1999, from 5.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 1998 .Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the important role that the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) has played in developing promising young women hockey players since 1984, (ii) the contribution of AIS players to the national women's hockey team, the Hockeyroos, over the past 15 years, and (iii) the outstanding result of the Hockeyroos in their recent test series against Scotland;(b) warmly congratulates the Australian women's hockey team for its test series success;(c) notes this series win by Australia follows more than a decade of achievement by the Australian women's hockey team, including two Olympic Gold medals, two World Cups and five consecutive Champions Trophy wins; and(d) thanks the Australian women's hockey team members for: (i) providing excellent role models for girls and women in sport, and (ii) helping to raise the profile of women's sport in general.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the week beginning 22 August 1999 is Hearing Awareness Week, (ii) that 10 per cent of the population, or at least 1.9 million people, have some form of hearing impairment or deafness, and (iii) the increasing number of Australians suffering hearing damage through accident, changing work and home environments and the ageing of our population; and(b) calls on the Government to provide greater assistance and resources to those in the community who are hearing impaired or deaf, including by legislating for television captioning.Senator Crossin to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) recognises the unique and harsh conditions under which Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel work and the fact that the ADF is not an ordinary workforce and has never been treated that way by previous governments;(b) notes that: (i) as a result of the new fringe benefits tax (FBT) reporting regime, put in place as part of the Government's new tax system, extreme hardship will be experienced by ADF personnel, and (ii) the Government has decided to exempt only a few of the fringe benefits and allowances that ADF personnel receive from the new FBT reporting regime; and(c) calls on the Government to continue to recognise the unique status of the ADF and to therefore exempt all ADF personnel from the FBT reporting requirements in respect of the conditions and benefits they receive because of their service in the armed forces.Committees77327732773215:39:007732Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Calvert, I present the 13th report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 13 OF 19991. The Committee met on 24 August 1999.2. At the request of Senator O'Brien, the committee reconsidered the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 and resolved to recommend that the order of the Senate of 28 June 1999 adopting report no. 10 of 1999, be varied as follows:That the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateTaxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics20 September 19993. The committee resolved to recommend-That the provisions of the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredCommitteeReporting dateParliamentary Service Bill 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyStanding Committee on Appropriations and Staffing21 September 1999The Committee recommends accordingly.4. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 20 April 1999). Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999. Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) Bill 1999. Employment, Education and Training Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 25 May 1999). ACIS Administration Bill 1999. ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implementation) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 22 June 1999). Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 29 June 1999). Australian Tourist Commission Amendment Bill 1999. Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999. Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999. Tradex Scheme Bill 1999. Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2](deferred from meeting of 10 August 1999). A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amendment) Bill (No. 1) 1999. Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. Electronic Transactions Bill 1999. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1999. Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999. General Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999. Superannuation Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999(deferred from meeting of 24 August 1999). Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999. (Paul Calvert)Chair25 August 1999Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationSales tax provisions are deemed to have retrospective effect.Provisions dealing with non-resource industry have the potential to significantly affect major infrastructure projects.Possible submission or evidence from:Construction industry participantsSales tax expertsCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Senate Economics Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) :September 1999Possible reporting date :20 September 1999signedWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill :Parliamentary Service Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:To inquire into the specific provisions contained in the bill which enable the Presiding Officers to set salaries for the Clerks of the ParliamentPossible submission or evidence from:CPSUPublic Service CommissionerJohn Nethercote, Department of the SenateCommonwealth OmbudsmanMichael Johnson, Public Sector Research Centre, University of New South WalesProf Pat Weller, Centre for Australian Public Sector Management, Griffith UniversityProf John Halligan, Centre for Research in Public Sector Management, University of CanberraCommittee to which bill is to be referred: Finance and Public Administration Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):As soon as practicablePossible reporting date: (signed)Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member Notices77347734Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 271 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to student poverty, postponed till 26 August 1999.General business notice of motion no. 272 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Senator Herron), postponed till 26 August 1999.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, postponed till 26 August 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till 26 August 1999.General business notice of motion no. 270 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to a proposal for an international nuclear waste repository in Western Australia, postponed till 26 August 1999.Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus)—by leave—agreed to:That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Miscellaneous773415:41:007734Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 276 standing in my name.Leave granted.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I move that the motion be amended by deleting (a)(ii)(a) and (d). The additions (c) and (d) now read: `recognises that the government's Internet censorship legislation is forcing Australian business overseas and recognises that parents should exercise their responsibility to determine what their children should view'.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this being taken as formal?6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—There is an objection. There should be a debate on this.Committees773477347734Motion (by Senator Hogg) proposed:(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.15:42:007734Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The government would like to place on record, having spoken to the other parties—and we understand the Democrats will be supporting this motion—the following comments.On 17 August 1999, the government announced that Transfield Thompson-CSF Pty Limited had been selected as the preferred purchaser for ADI Limited. The preferred purchaser is now undertaking final due diligence which will be completed in the near future. The Commonwealth will continue the negotiations and, subject to a satisfactory outcome, execute a share sale agreement. Details of the transaction will be announced when the final contract is entered into.Following the proposed sale, the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing will complete a post-sale report. The Australian National Audit Office also plans to complete an efficiency audit in relation to the proposed sale, as it does with all asset sales. The audit office will provide its report to the parliament.It would be inappropriate for the Senate to consider reviewing the proposed transaction during confidential and commercially sensitive negotiations, which should be concluded by the end of next month. The Senate inquiry could seriously jeopardise the Commonwealth's position in the current daily negotiations. It would also be highly unusual for a Senate inquiry to precede an ANAO inquiry and it could constrain or taint the independence of the ANAO. The government would welcome a Senate inquiry subsequent to the sale and will fully cooperate with an inquiry at that time, but we will not support an inquiry at this time.15:45:007735Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I seek leave to make some comment in respect of the statement made by the parliamentary secretary.Leave granted.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—In spite of what the parliamentary secretary has just said, there is no intention on the part of the inquiry by this committee to in any way jeopardise or put at risk the transactions that will be taking place. My preliminary view of the time for this inquiry will see the actual sale probably concluded by the time the inquiry is fully under way. So whilst the parliamentary secretary has raised some concern, I do not believe that those concerns are well founded. The issues are clearly out there in the public arena at this stage. We commend the motion to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills7735s2267735Motion (by Senators Brown, Bolkus and Greig) agreed to: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..Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.773515:48:007735Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—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—There is an urgent need for reform of the mandatory detention laws. This bill is based on Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child . It reflects the multipartisan nature of Australia's commitment to the well-being and dignity of its children.The bill follows repeated calls from human rights groups and other organisations for Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which have enacted mandatory detention laws, to repeal them. Despite widespread opposition to these laws from many sections of the community these calls have not been heeded.The effect of mandatory detention on the human rights of children is clearly a national issue requiring leadership and action by the national Parliament.For the purpose of the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill a child is defined as a person under the age of 18 years. The Bill provides that a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory must not require a court to sentence a person to imprisonment or detention for an offence committed when that person was a child.The following information is taken from Mandatory detention laws in Australia. An overview of current laws and proposed reform , prepared by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, August 1999.1. Current lawsMandatory detention laws were enacted in Western Australia and the Northern Territory in 1996 and 1997 respectively. Essentially these laws require courts to impose minimum sentences of detention or imprisonment for people convicted of certain offences. They effectively remove judicial discretion in relation to those offences.The WA laws came into effect on 14 November 1996 through amendments to the Criminal Code (WA). These amendments provide that when convicted for a third time or more for a home burglary, adult and juvenile offenders must be sentenced to a minimum of 12 months imprisonment or detention (the "three strikes and you're in" legislation). The provisions contain some allowance for both adults and juveniles to be released under supervision.The NT laws came into effect on 8 March 1997 through amendments to the NT Sentencing Act 1995 and the Juvenile Justice Act 1983. The Sentencing Act provisions apply only to persons aged 17 years or over.1Under Section 78A of the Sentencing Act persons found guilty of certain property offences shall be subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 14 days for a first offence. For a second property offence the mandatory minimum sentence is 90 days. For a third property offence the period of imprisonment is one year.The NT Sentencing Act was recently amended again to provide that courts are not required to impose a sentence of detention under these provisions in certain "exceptional circumstances". However, this applies to adults only and not to juveniles.Unlike the laws relating to adults which can be invoked at the first conviction, the mandatory detention provisions relating to juveniles in the NT require at least one prior conviction. Under section 53AE of the NT Juvenile Justice Act a person aged 15 or 16 years who has been convicted of a relevant property offence and has had at least one prior conviction for such an offence must be subject to detention for at least 28 days.The NT criminal justice system treats people as adults once they attain the age of 17 years. This means that 17 year olds will be subject to the adult mandatory detention provisions in the Sentencing Act . As indicated above, those provisions are not limited to repeat offenders and can be invoked on a first conviction. In addition, under the Juvenile Justice Act a person who turns 17 while serving a term in a juvenile detention facility is required to be transferred to an adult prison to serve out the remainder of the sentence.For the purpose of the NT mandatory detention provisions, relevant property offences include. theft (irrespective of the value of the property, and excluding theft when the offender was lawfully on premises). criminal damage. unlawful entry to buildings . unlawful use of vessel, motor vehicle, caravan or trailer (whether as a passenger driver). receiving stolen goods (regardless of value). receiving after change of ownership. taking reward for the recovery of property obtained by criminal means. assault with intent to steal. robbery (armed or unarmed)22. Australia's international human rights obligationsMandatory detention laws raise a number of issues in relation to Australia's international human rights obligations. They include obligations under The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Australia ratified in 1980. The ICCPR prohibits arbitrary detention (article 9(1)) and provides that sentences must be reviewable by a higher tribunal (article 14(5)).Mandatory detention raises particular concerns in relation to children, arising from Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC). The Convention applies to everyone under the age of 18. Relevant principles include. In all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration (Article 3(1)).. Detention of children must only be used as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period (Article 37(b)).. Sentences must be reviewable by a higher or appellate court (Article 40(2)(b)(v)).. Children who come into conflict with the law must be dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence (Article 40(4)).Australia ratified the Convention in 1990. This process involved consultation with all State and Territory Governments.When a country with a federal system of government ratifies a Convention it applies to all levels of government.3. The impact of mandatory detention lawsIn both NT and WA the mandatory detention laws have had a significant impact in terms of numbers incarcerated.The Australian Bureau of Statistics noted in late 1997 that the NT prisoner population had increased by 42% since mandatory detention was introduced.3The National Children's and Youth Law Centre examined the impact of the NT laws.. "While there are few reliable estimates of how many people have been gaoled under mandatory sentencing laws since they took effect in mid- 1997, those Territorians familiar with the effects of the regime say it runs into the hundreds. The majority of those sentenced have been young, Aboriginal men."4The National Convenor of Defence for Children International commented on the numbers of children incarcerated under mandatory detention laws.. "Over 50 children in WA have served or are serving the 12 month mandatory sentences in the State's one juvenile detention facility . . .In the NT . . . Corrective Services Annual Reports indicate that the number of juveniles sentenced to detention for relevant offences increased 53% in the one year to June 1998. The daily average [number] of juvenile detainees has also increased in the same proportion, from 15 to 23. In the two years since commencement, the number of juveniles who have already served or are serving mandatory sentences appears to be at least 66. This represents a dramatic increase on the 1995/96 numbers [of juveniles in detention] (22)."5The impact of mandatory detention laws is seen not just in the numbers affected but also in the disproportionate impact on particular groups of people, especially Indigenous people. Recent research indicated that Indigenous children constituted 80% of cases under the mandatory detention laws before the Children's Court of WA between February 1997 and May 1998.6Individual cases also provide valuable insights into the impact of the mandatory detention laws. They illustrate, among other things, the trivial nature of most of the offending behaviour relative to the penalty imposed. The following examples relate to the Northern Territory.Adults. A 24 year old Indigenous mother was sentenced to 14 days in prison for receiving a stolen $2.50 can of beer.. A 27 year old white teacher disputed the quality of a hotdog at a Darwin fast food bar and poured water onto the till. She paid in full for the damage she caused. She was sentenced to 14 days in prison.. An 18 year old Indigenous man obeyed his father and admitted to police that he stole a $2.50 cigarette lighter. He was sentenced to 14 days in prison.. A 29 year old homeless Indigenous man wandered into a backyard when drunk and took a $15 towel. It was his third minor property offence. He was imprisoned for one year.. A 20 year old man with no prior convictions was sentenced to 14 days in prison for theft of $9.00 worth of petrol. . An 18 year old man was sentenced to 90 days in prison for stealing 90 cents from a motor vehicle.Children(Note: These examples include 17 year olds who are treated as adults under the NT criminal justice system and are therefore subject to the adult mandatory detention provisions in the Sentencing Act .). Two 17 year old girls with no previous criminal convictions were both sentenced to 14 days in prison for theft of clothes from other girls who were staying in the same room.. A 17 year old girl with no prior convictions was sentenced to 14 days in prison for receiving jewellery stolen by other young people. The jewellery was later recovered.. A young offender broke into a toy shop and stole some computer games. He was detained for 14 days even though he confessed to police and his parents paid compensation to the owner of the shop.. Two young apprentices were each imprisoned for 14 days for first offences. One of them broke a window and the other broke a light worth $9.60.. A 17 year old boy was incarcerated for 28 days in an adult prison for a second conviction of minor theft. If the second offence had been committed on or after his 17th birthday the period of imprisonment would have been 14 days only.. A 15 year old girl was detained for 28 days for unlawful possession of a vehicle. In fact she was only a passenger in a stolen vehicle.. A 17 year old petrol sniffer from an Aboriginal community was sentenced to seven months plus 120 days for stealing food, alcohol, cigarettes, soft drink and petrol and causing associated minor property damage. The stolen items were consumed with friends. His sentence was based on the mandatory detention formula (120 days) with an additional seven months. He had very little family support and his record was clean until June 1998.The following "stories" highlight the economic and social disadvantage of many young people affected the Northern Territory mandatory detention laws. Names have been changed to avoid identification.. Robert is a 15 year old Aboriginal boy. He was first referred to the Department of Family, Youth and Children's Services when he was 12 due to a lack of parental support. Since the age of 14 Robert has mostly looked after himself. This year he attempted suicide while in police custody, having been arrested for a mandatory detention offence. The offence was one of property damage. He broke a window after hearing about the suicide of a close friend. . Andrew is a 17 year old Aboriginal boy who lives in a town camp outside of Alice Springs. He is well known to youth services in Alice Springs, having accessed the court system and income and accommodation support since he was 15. His literacy skills are low and English is his third language. As with many young people in Alice Springs Andrew has been identified as high risk and survived a suicide attempt recently. He was charged with a mandatory detention offence when he was 16 years old.. Tony is a 17 year old boy who lives between Alice Springs and several bush communities. Tony has been accessing crisis accommodation with youth services since he was 14 years old. He has a history of multiple substance dependency. Tony has minimal education and his literacy skills are low. English is his third language. He has never had his own income and workers who know him believe the bureaucracy of the system and the excessive paperwork is what deters him from accessing this entitlement. Tony is considered to be an adult in the Northern Territory. He has been charged with a mandatory detention offence (unlawful entry into a shop) and is facing imprisonment in an adult jail.4. Criticisms of mandatory detentionThe mandatory detention regimes in NT and WA have been the subject of increasing criticism in recent times. Criticisms have included the unjust nature of the laws and in particular their tendency to target vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, the harshness of the penalties given the sometimes minor nature of the offences involved, the economic costs associated with large increases in prison and detention centre numbers and the ineffectiveness of these laws as a deterrent to criminal activity. This section of the paper highlights some sources of these criticisms and summarises the key issues raised.4.1 Report of the Joint Standing Committee on TreatiesIn its Report on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (17th report, August 1998), the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was highly critical of mandatory detention.. "Mandatory sentencing does not take into account the child's age, the facts of the current offence, the individual circumstances of the person, consideration of an appropriate period of time or the application of judicial discretion. Mandatory detention restricts the court's capacity to ensure that the punishment is proportional to the seriousness of the offence and in relation to the rehabilitative options. These minimum sentences are in contravention of Article 37(b) of the Convention which requires that deprivation of liberty not be arbitrary and is a measure of last resort." (page 346). 4.2 Report of National Inquiry into Children and the Legal ProcessThe human rights violations inherent in mandatory detention laws were highlighted in Seen and heard (1997), the report of the National Inquiry into Children and the Legal Process, undertaken jointly by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission.. "The Northern Territory and Western Australia laws breach a number of international human rights standards and common law principles. They violate the principle of proportionality which requires the facts of the offence and the circumstances of the offender to be taken into account, in accordance with article 40 of CROC. They also breach the requirement that in the case of children detention should be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period, as required by article 37 of CROC. Mandatory detention violates a number of principles in the ICCPR including the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9. Both CROC and ICCPR require that sentences should be reviewable by a higher or appellate court. By definition, a mandatory sentence cannot be reviewed."The report recommended federal legislation to override these laws unless the Parliaments of WA and NT repeal them.The mandatory detention laws reflect the high degree of misinformation in the community about juvenile crime, a point that was also highlighted in the Seen and heard report. This includes perceptions about a "juvenile crime wave", despite the fact that there has been no significant increase in juvenile crime rates over the past 15 years. These perceptions, fuelled by the media and political rhetoric, have encouraged unjust and misconceived responses by governments to juvenile justice issues. The report cited numerous studies discrediting current perceptions about juvenile offending.. "Contrary to police and media reports and the claims of politicians, there is in Australia no juvenile crime wave and no large increase in serious juvenile crime."7. ". . . current [juvenile justice] policy is flawed by political expediency and `knee jerk' responses to perceived problems of antisocial and delinquent youth behaviour."84.3 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the ChildThe mandatory detention laws have also been the subject of international criticism. In 1997 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child stated, in relation to Australia— . "The situation in relation to juvenile justice and the treatment of children deprived of their liberty is of concern to the Committee . . . The Committee is particularly concerned by the enactment of new legislation in two States, where a high proportion of Aboriginal people live, which provides for mandatory detention and punitive measures of juveniles, thus resulting in a high representation of Aboriginal juveniles in detention."94.4 'A Year of Bad Policy: Mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory', by Louis Schetzer, [now Director, National Children's and Youth Law Centre] Alternative Law Journal , Vol 23, No.3, June 1998, p117As the title suggests, this article was highly critical of the NT mandatory detention laws.. "The past 18 months have seen the development of a repressive and unreasonable response by the Northern Territory's CLP Government to a perceived increase in criminal activity in the NT. Without providing any statistical evidence to substantiate statements that the NT was in the midst of a `crime wave', the Government adopted measures which are in clear contravention of international human rights conventions, particularly in their effect on young people."Mr Schetzer noted the irony of the fact that white collar crimes, such as fraud, obtaining financial advantage by deception and related offences are not subject to mandatory detention.The article expressed concern about the economic cost to the community of these laws.. "Undoubtedly, increasing incarceration rates will involve significant extra costs. The 1995-96 NT Correctional Services Annual Report stated that it costs $12,432 to accommodate each young person sentenced to a 28 day period of detention . . . The cost to the public purse for every adult sentenced under mandatory sentencing for the minimum 14 day period is approximately $2,400.". "The community is entitled to question whether they are getting value for their law and order dollar, or whether the money could be better spent elsewhere (such as health, public and emergency education and education)."Mr Schetzer challenged assumptions about the deterrent value of mandatory detention.. "[T]he prime motivation for the introduction of mandatory sentencing was a perception that property crime rates in the NT were far too high. The assumption that a tougher system of sentencing will act as a deterrent is a political vote winner, but it is contrary to an overwhelming weight of evidence across Australia and from overseas." According to Mr Schetzer, the NT Correctional Services Department has itself acknowledged the ineffectiveness of incarceration as a deterrent to re-offending. He quoted from a publication of that agency.. "The evidence is clear that the more access juveniles have to the criminal justice system the more frequently and deeper they will penetrate it . . . it has been shown that punishment of criminal offenders through incarceration in a juvenile detention centre or a prison . . . has little positive effect. What happens in many cases is that the detainees learn from their fellow inmates how to become more effective in committing crime."104.5 'Punishment is Blind: Mandatory Sentencing of Children in Western Australia and the Northern Territory' by Helen Bayes, National Convenor, Defence for Children International, University of NSW Law Journal , Vol 22(1) 1999, p286Ms Bayes highlighted the especially severe impact of these laws on children.. "Both pieces of legislation are more harsh on children than adults. In the NT young offenders receive multiples of 28 days, whereas adults (those 17 and over) receive multiples of 14 days for the same offence. In WA, children must serve half of their sentence (six months) before becoming eligible for release under supervision, whereas adults need serve only one third (four months)."Ms Bayes was especially concerned that these laws tend to target young people from seriously disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom engage in petty crime to survive.. "What is not acknowledged by the politicians is that many of these young offenders are children who have suffered years of physical and emotional neglect, have effectively been abandoned by their families and the welfare system, and are trying to live independent of violent and abusive homes. These are children and young people who have learned to live by their wits and whose survival may already have depended on it."4.6 Mandatory Imprisonment of Property Offenders in the Northern Territory', by George Zdenkowski, Associate Professor of Law, University of New South Wales, University of NSW Law Journal , Vol 22(1), 1999, p302Like many other observers. Professor Zdenkowski has questioned the deterrent effect of mandatory detention laws. He cited a number of research studies in support of the proposition that mandatory minimum sentences have no real impact on the rate of crime. The focus on particular property offences was also questioned.. "While certain property crimes are targeted, there is no evidence that they are the source of greater social harm than non-targeted property offences (especially as there is no requirement of seriousness) or indeed, offences involving personal violence."He expressed concern about inequities resulting from the inflexible nature of these laws.. "[G]iven the inflexible and discriminatory impact of the mandatory minimum prison term on differently circumstanced offenders and offences, it is inevitable that the penalty will be disproportionate in some cases."4.7 `Mandatory sentencing laws and the symbolic politics of law and order', by Russell Hogg, School of Law, Macquarie University, University of NSW Law Journal , Vol 22(1), 1999, p262This article drew upon the US experience. It noted that California's "three strikes law" is one of the toughest in the US. The Rand Organisation analysed the likely costs and benefits of the Californian laws over a 25 year period. It concluded that by 2002 spending on corrections would increase from 9% of the State budget to 18%. It also concluded that spending in other areas such as higher education, pollution and workplace safety would need to drop by over 40% in the period up to 2002 to fund the three strikes law.The author foresaw a similar scenario for Australia.. "Prison populations will still rise dramatically and the budgets of other public services will have to be plundered to pay for them."The author saw clear lessons for Australia from the US experience.. "Politicians in Australia have in recent years increasingly looked to the US for their ideas about criminal justice policy. The lessons we have to learn from that country, however, are largely negative ones: those of a country that has more than tripled its prison population in less than two decades (and currently has a prison population more than five times that of Australia), that despite recent reductions in crime still experiences much higher crime rates (especially violent crime) than most other countries in the world and that appears incapable of relaxing its punitive obsession."Like many commentators. Mr Hogg was disturbed at the way public discourse on these issues has been driven largely by political rhetoric.. "In Australia . . . the stridency of the political rhetoric, the vagueness of proposals for sentencing reform and their proximity to elections are the clearest indications of what is really at stake. They usually represent the latest attempt to lift the bar in the law and order high jump. The rationale for such measures is less an instrumental one of reducing crime than it is the symbolic one of tapping and harnessing punitive public opinion behind a new program of draconian penal measures."4.8 'Capturing crims or capturing votes', by Neil Morgan, Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia, University of NSW Law Journal , Vol 22(1), 1999, p267This article focused on the WA laws. It spoke about the "phantom" of deterrence, arguing that there is a steadily accumulating body of research confirming that increased penalties do not have a significant deterrent effect. It noted that in the US mandatory penalties for drug offences have had no impact on the drug trade or the price of illegal substances.Mr Morgan placed the onus of proving the deterrent effect of mandatory detention squarely on its supporters.. "At the very least the onus is on those who argue for a deterrent effect to produce evidence to support their thesis."The "knee-jerk" way in which these laws were introduced was the subject of criticism.. "[T]he political process can move with unseemly haste: there is a clear pattern of mandatories being introduced at time of political pressure without adequate data to support their introduction"The article highlighted the unjust nature of the laws, noting that in WA a very trivial burglary may well attract a much harsher penalty than a relatively serious fraud.The discriminatory impact of the laws was also highlighted.. "[M]andatories involve the policy choice to select certain types of criminal activity for special attention. These policy choices invariably involve the selection of offences (for example burglary or car stealing) in which minority and lower socio-economic groups are over-represented."4.9 Launch of UNSW Law Journal Forum on Mandatory Sentencing Legislation, by Hon Justice Michael Adams, Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, University of NSW Law Journal , Vol 22(1) 1999, p257Justice Adams argued that mandatory detention laws undermine the independence of the judiciary.. "One of the crucial aspects of this debate . . . concerns the independence of the judiciary. In proposing schemes . . . of mandatory . . . sentences, the politicians are . . . calling into question the sentencing patterns and procedures that have been developed by courts in accordance with statutes of long standing. To do so without any attempt at reasoned justification or to analyse the alleged shortcomings of the existing sentencing regimes . . . seriously undermines public confidence in the courts.". "To remove judicial discretion in such a vital area of the liberties of the subject is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the judiciary.". "The assertion by the elected politicians of the right, in effect, to impose particular sentences for particular crimes, as a response to immediate political exigencies is a significant interference with traditional and well settled principles of the separation of powers."4.10 Mandatory Life Sentences in New South Wales , by Nicholas Cowdery QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW, University of NSW Law Journal , Vol 22(1), 1999, p290This article emphasised the important role of judicial discretion in sentencing, a role that is effectively removed by mandatory detention. The High Court of Australia was cited on this point.. "It is both unusual and in general, in my opinion, undesirable that the court should not have a discretion in the imposition of penalties and sentences, for circumstances alter cases and it is a traditional function of a court of justice to endeavour to make the punishment appropriate to the circumstances as well as to the nature of the crime." [Barwick CJ in Palling v Corfizeld (1970) 123 CLR 52 at 58]Mr Cowdery's comments about the meaning of "justice" may well be applied in the context of mandatory detention.. "Justice means justice to both the community and the individual. It has been a hard won commodity and we should think carefully before we allow the government of the day to shackle it."1 Sentencing Act 1995 (NT), s42 Sentencing Act 1995 (NT), Schedule 13 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Year Book Australia 1998 , `National Figures on Crime and Punishment'4 National Children's and Youth Law Centre, `Mandatory Sentencing Continues in Disgust', Rights Now , July 19995 Helen Bayes, `Punishment is Blind: Mandatory Sentencing of Children in Western Australia and the Northern Territory', University of NSW Law Journal , Vol 22(1), 1999 p2866 C. Stokes, `Three Strikes and You're In: Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Repeat Home Burglars in Western Australia', unpublished honours thesis, University of Western Australia, 19987 M Findlay, S Odgers & S Yea Australian Criminal Justice Oxford University Press Melbourne 1994, 264, cited in Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process HREOC/ALRC 1997, p4668 K Buttrum `Juvenile justice: What works and what doesn't!' Paper Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice: Towards 2000 and Beyond AIC Conference Adelaide 26-27 June 1997, cited in Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process HREOC/ALRC 1997, p4669 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on Australia's first report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted on 10 October 1997.10 Information on Departmental Juvenile Justice Services in the NT , NT Correctional Services Department, 1991Debate (on motion by Senator Coonan) adjourned.Committees774177417741Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Collins) agreed to:(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.Notices774177417741Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek leave to postpone general business notice of motion No. 276 standing in my name for today until tomorrow.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave granted? 6H4HARRADINESenator Harradine—No.Leave not granted.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. For my information, Madam Deputy President, can you tell me what happens in a situation where formality is not allowed by a senator and then leave to postpone the matter is not allowed?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The item of business remains on the Notice Paper in its due order.Motion (by Senator O'Brien)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 275 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for today, relating to a shipment of highly radioactive nuclear fuel or waste, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees77427742774215:50:007742O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 12 of 1999, dated 25 August 1999.7742774215:51:007742Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of Senator Calvert and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's fifth report of 1999, on the Replacement Nuclear Research Reactor, Lucas Heights, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to incorporate Senator Calvert's tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Replacement nuclear research reactor, Lucas Heights, NSWMadam President, the report which I have tabled deals with the proposed construction of a replace ment nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in New South Wales.The replacement research reactor is planned to replace the 41-year old High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR), which is expected to reach the end of its operational life around the year 2005.When referred to the Committee, the estimated cost of the facility was $286.4 million.The Committee has recommended that the project should proceed—subject to a number of important conditions which I will address in a moment.The merit or otherwise of proceeding with the construction of a replacement research reactor has been the subject of a number of reports. Of note are the reports of the 1993 Research Reactor Review and the Senate Select Committee's inquiry into Australia's nuclear waste in 1996.The proposed replacement research reactor has also been the subject of an extensive environmental impact assessment process.A draft environmental impact statement was made available for public comment between August and November last year. A Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement which addressed substantive concerns raised in submissions was prepared and made available for public viewing. In March this year, the Minister for the Environment released the Department's Environment Assessment Report (EAR) on the proposed replacement reactor proposal.The EAR concludes that there are no environmental reasons, including on safety, health, hazard or risk grounds, to prevent the construction of the proposed reactor at Lucas Heights.This conclusion is subject to the implementation of 29 environmental approval conditions. These are also referred to in the Committee's report.In terms of the need for a replacement research reactor, the Committee has concluded that:. HIFAR is obsolete and will need to be permanently decommissioned in 2005.. The estimated cost of refurbishing HIFAR to comply with safety requirements alone would be half of the cost of providing a new research reactor. This would not provide an enhancement of its research and operational capabilities which are considered by the scientific community to be limited. Such limitations have led to a reduction in national research and development opportunities.. A need exists to replace HIFAR with a modern research reactor. The new national research reactor must be operational some time before HIFAR is decommissioned.. The need for the replacement of HIFAR arises as a consequence of national interest consider ations, research and development requirements and the need to sustain the local production of radiopharmaceuticals.. There has been substantial investment in infrastructure at Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre.. Construction of a replacement research reactor at a greenfields site and decommissioning of HIFAR would require the provision of much of the infrastructure which already exists at Lucas Heights.. The comparative costs of locating the replacement research reactor at Lucas Heights or a greenfields site favour the former by a considerable margin.. On financial grounds there is merit in locating the replacement research reactor at Lucas Heights, subject to the suitability of the site on operational and public safety grounds.The proposed replacement research reactor will be located within the 70 hectare Lucas Heights Science and Technology Centre. Final approvals for the site, the design, commissioning and operation are the responsibility of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—ARPANSA.The replacement reactor will be a pool type reactor—the reactor assembly will be located near the bottom of a deep pool of demineralised water.A neutron guide hall will provide better separation of operating, research and production functions. This will allow for greater flexibility.ANSTO advised the Committee that the pool type construction provides a high level of inherent safety and will facilitate ease of materials handling.The fuel material will be low enriched uranium, a material which is less than 20 per cent uranium 235.The Committee has recommended that during the licencing, construction and commissioning phases ANSTO should provide the Committee with six-monthly reports on progress.The report covers, at length, the production and management of radioactive emissions and solid waste. All previous reports, which span six years, were based on extensive public consultation processes.ANSTO has given public environmental commitments on emissions and radioactive wastes. These encompass complying with all relevant legislative and regulatory requirements.Furthermore, ANSTO will need to obtain licences from ARPANSA at various stages of the construction and commissioning of the replacement research reactor. The Committee shares concerns expressed about the continued storage of a considerable inventory of radioactive waste at Lucas Heights, including spent fuel rods. There may be some substance in the proposition that waste management is regarded as the key obstacle to the growth and acceptance of nuclear research facilities.The question of radioactive waste generation, storage and disposal has been under consideration by various Governments since 1992.A region in the central-north region of South Australia has been identified as a possible site for a national radioactive waste repository. It is expected that the preferred site will be announced in late 1999. Use of the site as a national radioactive repository will be subject to detailed environmental assessment and further public review.Land at the repository will be used for the below ground burial of all low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste. The Committee's report mentions that the Government would consider co-locating a store for Australia's long-lived intermediate level radioactive waste with the repository.If the site is considered suitable, similar environmental impact assessments and public review would apply.The Committee's report mentions an area called Little Forest Burial Ground which is located within the buffer zone about one kilometre north of LHSTC. It contains low level radioactive waste generated by the former Atomic Energy Commission. The wastes are buried in various trenches and covered with at least one metre of soil The Committee's report notes that whilst risks may be regarded as negligible, there is a public perception that the site poses risks. It is remote from LHSTC and close to major roads. The Committee considers it imperative that a high priority be given to the exhumation and removal of the waste to the national repository.In relation to waste and public safety concerns, the report recommends that:. Provided all recommendations and commitments contained in the Environment Assessment Report are implemented during construction and commissioning and for the expected life of the research reactor, the Committee believes, based on the evidence, that all known risks have been identified and their impact on public safety will be as low as technically possible.. Removal of all radioactive waste from Lucas Heights for disposal or storage at a National Repository must be a high priority and is dependent on the timely provision of the Repository and Store.. In its quarterly and annual reports to Parliament, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency should report on the implementation of all recommendations in the Environment Assessment Report falling within its direct responsibility.. In future, in its Annual Report to Parliament ANSTO should report on compliance and implementation of all recommendations in the Environment Assessment Report.ANSTO must develop a specific program for ongoing community consultation and dissemination of information during the design, construction and commissioning phase of the reactor, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Environment and Heritage.The project will be undertaken on a lump-sum turnkey basis, with the prime contractor being responsible for the delivery of ANSTO's required performance outcomes.The estimated cost of the project is $286.4 million in January 1997 Australian dollars. The capital cost of a replacement reactor was derived from a market survey of potential reactor vendors in 1992 and further refined. The methodology was verified and cost estimates were endorsed by the Department of Finance and Administration.ANSTO advised the Committee that the cost estimate is comparable with the cost of construction of recent reactors and confirmed as appropriate in discussions with potential vendors during 1998.The report concludes:. The estimated cost is based on international precedents and national construction with no scope for design variations during construction which could lead to cost increases.. A high level management structure will be established to oversight the project with representation from key departments—including the Department of Finance and Administration.And further recommends that:. provision of the reactor should not be at the expense of other Government science funding.Madam President, I commend the report to the Senate.15:51:007744Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats remain highly concerned about the government's involvement in the expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia. In speaking to this report of the Public Works Committee, I would like to take issue, to begin with, with the title of the report. This report is about a new nuclear reactor for Lucas Heights, not simply a replacement reactor. The existing reactor will not be removed but will go through a lengthy period of managed care prior to being decommissioned. I would also like to clarify that this report relates to Australia's possible third reactor rather than the second. Indeed the second reactor, known as Moata, does not yet appear to have a complete decommissioning plan. The most important point here is that we are being deliberately misled at every turn along the path to the approval and construction of this new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. The process leading up to the selection of Lucas Heights as the location for Australia's third nuclear reactor, this new reactor, has been flawed in numerous respects. It now seems clear that only very limited location options were explored by cabinet prior to beginning this approval process. The community consultation process was virtually non-existent and of course the community still has many significant concerns which we believe have yet to be appropriately addressed by government. We have repeatedly heard emotive justifications for the new nuclear reactor based on the medical use of isotopes. This is highly misleading. Only a relatively small proportion of the output of the existing reactor is used for medical purposes. There has been only a cursory examination of non-nuclear alternatives to nuclear medicine techniques which use isotopes. The $300 million plus to be spent on this project makes this our single largest ever spending on a science project and, as I have pointed out before, with limited consultation, from what we can understand, with the science community as well. I wonder what the result might be if the government were to contribute these funds to the over-stretched higher education sectors or the R&D sector where science and technology academics and researchers are constantly crying out for these badly needed funds.It should also be noted at this stage that the existing reactor is shut down for around three months each year, yet there seems to be no outcry about the lack of isotopes during those periods. Apparently, international supplies of isotopes are readily available. But despite this commercial availability of isotopes, it has been suggested that using international sup plies would be a NIMBY problem—not in my backyard. This is a ludicrous argument. There are numerous products which are used here which are not produced in Australia. We must ask why the government intends to provide a massive subsidy for isotope production. In addition, the $300 million figure does not include the costs of waste disposal.The 1993 McKinnon review of the operation of the Lucas Heights reactor made a number of recommendations, which I will not repeat. They certainly have been oft repeated in this place—I hope people are more than familiar with some of them. However, I draw attention to one particular recommendation dealing with radioactive waste disposal. That recommendation said that a solution to the high-level waste disposal problem was essential and necessary well prior to any future decision about a new reactor. We do not yet have a solution to the high-level waste disposal problem. It is becoming clear that the government intends to push through their flawed proposal for a national radioactive waste dump either in South Australia, my home state, or in Western Australia. My colleagues from Western Australia, Senators Andrew Murray and Brian Greig, have very strong concerns about that, not simply because it is in our backyards; we would object to any proposal that does not appropriately deal with the storage and disposal in a safe and healthy manner when it comes to waste that we are producing.The issue of waste disposal should not continue to be considered as an afterthought issue. There has not yet been a solution to the problem of waste storage at the Lucas Heights complex either. Apart from the spent fuel rods in supposedly dry storage, there are significant quantities of lower level waste in unsuitable storage. The Australian Democrats have made clear we will not stand by while this government continues to expand its nuclear agenda. That is what they are doing—pursuing an expansionary nuclear agenda for this nation. I am particularly disappointed that the Public Works Committee report does not examine the superficiality of the justifications that have been advanced by many others, including this government, for a new reactor. We do not need a new nuclear reactor in this nation. What we do need is a way of ending Australia's involvement in the nuclear cycle.15:56:007745Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I concur with everything Senator Stott Despoja has just said. In particular, I emphasise the fact that this proposal for a replacement nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney, New South Wales, depends on the waste being removed off the site and going somewhere, but it does not say where. So the cart is being put before the horse there.Senator Stott Despoja is quite right: it appears that South Australia may be the repository at the forefront of the government's mind, with all the problems that then arise of transport of the waste and storage at some dump in South Australia, if not in Western Australia. This is an internal version of the problem that comes out of the proposal for Pangea, which involves international nuclear traffickers looking for a dump site somewhere in Australia. In the last 24 hours, we have seen Premier Court in Western Australia reiterate the fact that that is not going to be Western Australia, that overall a waste dump would be very damaging to Western Australia's interests, economic as well as social. Western Australians will not even contemplate it, nor should they.The problem with the proposal for another 50 years of this nuclear facility on site in Sydney is that although fuel is going to be dispensed overseas it is going to be coming back. Fifty years reprocessing, presumably with France, will need to be entered into and there will be all the problems involved with that. But behind the problem of the government's determination to proceed with the proposal is its inability to speak up for wider needs within Australia.At the moment, we have two nuclear waste ships coming from Le Havre in France via South Africa where there have been protests by the South African Greens. They are headed for our waters to the south and then through the Tasman Sea to Japan. Those two enormous ships are carrying a huge amount of radioactive material that is potentially available, with very simple processing, for nuclear weapons manufacture. The prospect of something going wrong with those shipments while in our waters is unthinkable, yet there are scores more of such waste shipments coming past our exposed coastline.Australia is the only country in the neighbourhood, as the Labor Party has recently pointed out, that has not had the gumption to say, `We object to this. We are concerned about it. Where are your plans for reparations? What are your plans in the event of an accident with this shipping?' The Australian government has done nothing about that, has no contingency plan and has no insurance—because you cannot have insurance—against the enormous impact this would have on Australia were something to go wrong. Because of this proposal which involves us in transhipping nuclear waste to the other side of the world and back again, the government is sitting on its hands over a much bigger problem in terms of the overall global trade in nuclear materials, including materials which can be used in the wrong hands or even in government hands for the production of nuclear weapons.Reprocessing is prohibited by law in Australia, so what does the government do? It ships the material off—not just to a nearby place but right around the other side of world—and then it comes back again. The government knows it is part of this evil business and that the nuclear industry involves danger to life on the planet, no less. That is why this report is inadequate. It simply does not get around even the basic problems that the re-establishment of this nuclear reactor in Sydney presents, not only for that city—in particular, for its neighbours nearest to the reactor site—but for places all over Australia; that is, in the transport, storage and dumping of nuclear waste and, beyond that, the indirect but important flow-on problem of the whole nuclear industry transporting waste right around the planet until something goes drastically wrong. Then there will be the review that there should be now.16:01:007746Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relates to the proposed replacement research reactor at Lucas Heights. There is a lot that I could say, as honourable senators are aware, because of my interest in this issue. However, I will restrain myself today because the Senate Economics References Committee is due to hand down its report next week on the issue of whether Australia needs a new nuclear reactor and, if so, where that should be located. I am a member of that committee. That report is due to be handed down next week, so I do not wish to address it in any way. But I do have to make some comments about this report because I find it somewhat deficient in its consideration of the many important issues that I had hoped the committee would have addressed. I can assure honourable senators and, indeed, the public that the Senate committee has addressed those issues and will be reporting on them next week.The title of this report reads: Report relating to the proposed replacement nuclear research reactor, Lucas Heights, NSW. One of the interesting things about this issue is that the government has continuously used the words `replacement nuclear reactor' since it made its announcement in September 1997. It has deliberately done so. People might ask, `What's in a word?' There is a heck of a lot in this word. From the outset, ANSTO, the department and the coalition government have tried to portray this development as nothing more than a replacement reactor for the current reactor at Lucas Heights. By doing so, they will never use the words, `This is a new nuclear reactor.' This is a new reactor that is going to operate for the next 40 to 50 years at Lucas Heights. It is going to continue to generate substantial amounts of waste and it is not some sort of maintenance operation or simple replacement facility for the existing reactor. The existing HIFAR reactor will continue to exist at Lucas Heights in a decommissioned state for the next 40 to 50 years.The reason the government continues to use the term `replacement' is that it suits its argument: if you term it a replacement reactor, it should be placed at Lucas Heights. As everyone knows, if there were no reactor currently at Lucas Heights, it would be one of the last places in Australia—let alone New South Wales—that you would pick to put a reactor in. As this report notes, there is a substantial population, not far from the current reactor, that has built up since the first reactor was constructed in the 1950s, and more so in recent years when the urban sprawl ballooned to quite immense proportions.One of the arguments that is constantly put—and seemingly endorsed by this committee—is that when you look at the cost of putting a new reactor at some other location or putting that same reactor at Lucas Heights, it is much cheaper to put it at Lucas Heights. Therefore it is argued that is the appropriate site. Another argument that is often run is that, because the people of the Sutherland shire and the surrounding suburbs—particularly Barden Ridge, Heathcote, Engadine, Woronora Heights, Menai, Illawong, Bangor and Yarrawarrah—may have moved into the area since the first reactor was built, they should accept another reactor. The argument goes: `The reactor was there before you moved into this area, so you should cop it.' Frankly, that sort of attitude is not appropriate. What it says to the people in that region is, `You have to cop for all time a nuclear facility in your backyard.'WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—For the good of the nation!656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—For the good of the nation, Senator Julian McGauran. If it is for the good of the nation, I imagine there are plenty of sites in remote areas of your home state or in other states that might be willing to accept it. If you argue that, because it is there, that is where the next one should go and the one after that and the one after that, you should also apply the same argument to other facilities such as Sydney airport.Nobody in their right mind today would suggest that we should actually expand the size of Sydney airport any more than it currently is. Why? Because everybody knows that that is a politically and environmentally unacceptable proposal. But that airport was at Mascot many years before many of the people who live there moved into the surrounding suburbs. What is being said is, `On the one hand, if you happen to live at Lucas Heights you have to cop the reactor because it was there before you moved in. But if you happen to have moved into a suburb near Mascot, then you have a legitimate right to complain about aircraft noise and about the expansion of facilities at Mascot. And, in fact, because of the environmental and other concerns that you may have about that proposal, we the government think that a new airport should be built somewhere else.' I wish you would actually tell us when you are going to make the decision on the airport. But that is another matter. There is a huge degree of hypocrisy about these issues.I will quickly make a couple of other points. As I said, I will be having a lot more to say about this issue in the future. This report, in my view, seems essentially to adopt the ANSTO position. Frankly, I think the government has been snowed by ANSTO. It is in their self-interest—and I do not blame them—to promote, firstly, the building of a new reactor and, secondly, to put it at Lucas Heights. That is the easy way out.But that approach does not address the real issues that were identified by Professor McKinnon and his team in the Research Reactor Review in 1993. That review is referred to in the Public Works Committee's report, and it laid down some pretty strict guidelines as to what issues should be considered before any final decision is made about a new reactor. I make the point that this was an independent inquiry conducted by experts. This was neither a parliamentary inquiry where political bias may sometimes intervene, nor, certainly, some secret interdepartmental or intradepartmental decision made that the government then refused to release information about—as it has done on this issue. In his report, Professor McKinnon stated that before any decision is made on a new reactor:. . . it would be appropriate to make a decision about a possible new reactor at the end of about five years, providing the following requirements had been met:. a high level waste site has been firmly identified and work started on proving its suitability—I intervene: that has not been done—. there is no evidence that spallation technology can economically offer as much or more than a new reactor;That is something that should be considered in greater detail than has been done by this committee or by the government. Further:. there has been no practical initiation of a cyclotron anywhere worldwide to produce technitium-99m;. there is good evidence of strong and diverse applications of neutron scattering capability—And also:. that the national interest remains a high priority.But they went on to say this:A suitable site would therefore need to be identified.That would not necessarily just include Lucas Heights. And the report made this very telling point:If any of these onerous requirements is not met, either a negative decision, or a decision to delay further, would be indicated.The facts are that the government has not undertaken the proper inquiry that was envisaged by that review, and on that basis the decision should not be proceeded with. (Time expired) .Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents77487748774810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 9 of 1999-2000—Performance Audit—Managing Pest and Disease Emergencies: Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Australia.16:11:007748Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I will not delay the Senate, but I do not want a report as important as this to go without notice. This is about managing pest and disease emergencies in Australia and the enormous impact that pests and diseases can have on this country. Indeed, the report itself points out that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which, as we know, affects cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, could cause a fall of about 3½ per cent in gross domestic product, a one per cent increase in unemployment and a loss of $2 billion a year in export earnings if it were to occur. I think the report is important reading for people who are involved not just in agricultural industries but in the protection of Australia's environment because the two things are inseparably vulnerable to the import of pests and diseases.Two aspects of this, I think, are incredibly important. There are moves being made to deal with ballast water but, if you walk to Constitution Dock in Tasmania—and I know you have done that often, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson—and look at the bottom, at the moment the shallows are littered with massive, carnivorous sea stars. They are now called Pacific sea stars. They have come from Japan. They are eating everything else in the vicinity, and they will end up eating each other. They are cannibalistic when the food supply is down. It is apparent that those sea stars were introduced in ballast water on a woodchip ship some time in the past—and this is not the first time it has happened. It just shows how vulnerable we are to increasing world trade and the movement of people, and how industries have a wider responsibility in the movement of goods and stock into and out of the country.I think it is incredibly important also that we look at the potential for disaster coming out of the deliberate importation of species to this country. The CSIRO can speak for itself on this but, in the past, it has been the agent for introducing, quite deliberately, species into the country which are now costing millions, if not billions, of dollars per annum to try to control. I understand that, for trial, grasses are still being brought into various parts of northern Australia to see how they will go in our arid climate. The problem is that, if they are no good for stock, they can very well get away, compete with native grasses and create havoc not only for natural ecosystems but ultimately for the economic wellbeing of industries dependent on the grasslands.The precautionary principle there needs to be absolutely employed. There is no room for experimentation any longer in this country. We have seen the disasters too frequently, and to get a quick potential advantage out of trying some new species brought in for commercial reasons is simply unconscionable in this day and age. I am glad this report is out but I would like to see even stronger measures than those recommended here to bolster the improving way in which we deal with our rapidly increasing problem, the movement in and out of the country of goods and people, threatening ecosystems and our economic wellbeing.16:16:007749Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—With regard to this report, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills7749r832774916:16:007749McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the National Health Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover) Bill 1999, together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printedDocuments77497749774916:17:007749Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—by leave—I would like to concur with Senator Brown's remarks and add to them by raising another issue that is very relevant to the disease emergencies that Australia could face, particularly in relation to the importing of salmon and trout in the raw state.At present, Australia is being taken before the World Trade Organisation because of our restrictions on imports. Canada is saying to Australia that they require the same import procedures as New Zealand. At present, New Zealand is required to remove only the gut of these fish to bring them in, and there are no restrictions whatsoever on the packaging or on material extraneous to what is put on the market. Canada is required to remove the heads and bone, and when the imports come to Australia they are required to impound the packaging and all of the water used in the processing, and that must be disposed of according to special criteria.The problem is that neither of those two procedures will protect Australia from being exposed to the 20 diseases that the import of those raw products can bring to Australia. Even if those raw products are frozen and brought into Australia, 14 of those diseases can survive the freezing process. We run the great risk of exposing all of our native fish, all of our fishing industry and our recreational fishermen to extreme dangers if these pathogens get into our streams.Canada is a classic example. They were free of these same diseases until they imported fish from Europe. They are now in the same position as the rest of Europe. Australia is free of all of these 20 diseases. It would make good sense for the government to continue with the bans that were put in place in 1964 when all raw fish was banned from being imported. The New South Wales Department of Agriculture has also likened this disease to foot and mouth disease if it escaped into Australia. And, as the senator has already pointed out, the economic possibility of that is quite serious.In concluding, I would just ask that, when we receive reports like these, the Senate is aware of the requirements that these reports and the particular functions that need to be carried out. I ask, particularly in this case, that the Senate takes note of the possibilities of importing disease with the salmon and trout in their raw state.Committees77497749UNKNOWNThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Minchin)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Appropriations and Staffing—Standing Committee— Appointed: Senator Allison Discharged: Senator BourneRural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator O'Brien to replace Senator Forshaw for the consideration of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Amendment Bill 1999.Bills7750r891Billsr870Billsr8937750Bills received from the House of Representatives.16:23:007750Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—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 one of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.775016:24:007750Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—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—TELEVISION LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 will amend the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 to impose a requirement on commercial television broadcasting licensees to pay an additional amount in licence fees of $1.21 million in 1999-2000, $1.21 million in 2000-2001 and $0.99 million in 2001-2002.The bill gives effect to the Government's 1999 Budget decision to recover the costs of providing additional resources to enable the Australian Broadcasting Authority to undertake activities related to the conversion from analog to digital television transmission. This bill is accompanied by the Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No.2) 1999, which makes complementary amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The bills will help facilitate the introduction of digital television services in metropolitan licence areas on 1 January 2001 and in regional licence areas between 1 January 2001 and 1 January 2004.Under Schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Services Act, the Authority is required to develop conversion schemes for commercial and national television broadcasters and deal with digital implementation plans. The legislation also gives the Authority the function of assessing the technical feasibility of access to transmission towers and sites by broadcasters for the installation of transmission equipment.In view of the extra resources required by the Authority to undertake these additional tasks, the Government has decided to recover this cost from the commercial television broadcasters, who will be the major beneficiaries of the Authority's work in this area.The extra funding of $3.41 million allocated to the Authority over the three years to 2001-2002 will be recovered through a three-year temporary surcharge on annual licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters. In 1999-2000, this surcharge will amount to less than 0.7 per cent of the $194.5 million paid in licence fees by the commercial television broadcasters for the 1997-98 financial year.BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1999The Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No.2) 1999 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to suspend the cost recovery arrangement applying to expenses incurred by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the commercial television conversion scheme over the next three years. This bill complements measures contained in the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 which will impose a surcharge on licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters over the three years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002.These two bills give effect to the Government's 1999 Budget decision to recover the costs of providing additional resources for the Australian Broadcasting Authority to undertake activities related to digital television conversion.In recognition of the additional financial impost the surcharge will place on commercial television broadcasting licensees, the Government has decided to exempt these broadcasters from the Authority's current fee for service regime for the three year period of the surcharge.VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 appropriates funds to support vocational education and training which are provided to the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) for distribution to the States and Territories and for National Projects.This bill would increase the amount previously appropriated for 1999 by $14.208 million in line with normal price adjustments, taking total funding for 1999 to $918.352 million.The bill would also appropriate the same level of funding for 2000, giving effect to the government's commitment to maintain funding in real terms for the three year duration of the Australian National Training Authority Agreement 1998 to 2000.This Agreement is a recognition by both the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments that a strong national vocational education and training system is essential to develop the skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry, and to enable individual Australians to optimise their potential.Under the Agreement, the States and Territories have also undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through efficiencies.This is already well under way. I am pleased to report that State and Territory Ministers have estimated that, by the end of 1999, there will be an additional 70,000 training places provided nationally over the 1997 level.This is an excellent outcome, especially for young Australians, who will benefit from additional opportunities to undertake vocational education and training that will help them gain real jobs. It will, of course, also benefit those already in the labour market by enabling them to maintain the competitive advantage that up-to-date skills provide.The Commonwealth funding provided to the States and Territories through ANTA will promote higher standards, provide increased training opportunities and encourage greater choice and flexibility in vocational education and training.It is a key element in the government's support of the sector and, like the recent budget, clearly reflects the Commonwealth's continuing commitment to strengthen Australia's vocational education and training system.Overall, this year's budget provides a total of $1.6 billion for vocational education and training. This includes $354 million in 1999-2000 for New Apprenticeships.There is a record number of New Apprentices in training; standing at an all time high of 206,400 as at December 1998.The significant growth in the numbers in training is testament to the government's initiatives to modernise Apprenticeships and Traineeships. Through the government's reforms, New Apprenticeships have now expanded real work-based training into new industries and occupations such as information technology, business services, retailing, tourism and hospitality. In a flexible way, New Apprenticeships are delivering training which responds directly to the needs of businesses, and are opening up opportunities for unprecedented numbers of Australians, in high growth industries as well as in traditional trades.To ensure that people in rural areas can share in these new training opportunities, an extra $51.4 million is being provided under the Rural and Regional New Apprenticeships program from 1 January 1999. This will help to boost opportunities for employment in emerging industries such as information technology, retail and hospitality for an estimated 30,000 New Apprenticeships in rural Australia.The government has also maintained funding of about $13 million per year for the continuation of the Jobs Pathway Program which is an important way to help the seventy per cent of school leavers who do not go directly on to university to move successfully from school to work.Together with the government's reforms to vocational training, this funding will provide a sound basis to meet the training challenges that the economy and community will face as we move into the next century.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Gibbs) adjourned. Ordered that the Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 1999 be listed on the Notice Paper as a separate order of the day.Bills7752r6467752Consideration resumed.(Quorum formed)10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering amendment No. 1 moved by Senator Brown on behalf of the Australian Greens.16:27:007752Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I return to this important amendment, which is to give the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 its own definition of `comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system'. As I was saying this morning, the bill simply leaves that to whichever RFA is drawn up in whichever state—different definitions around the country. That is of itself not good enough. I have introduced an amendment and a definition here which meets the requirements of everybody taking part in this debate. It brings into play the definition from the national forest policy itself in regard to protecting biodiversity, that is, the variation of plants and animals in our forests, the old-growth forests that are left and wilderness where wild forest remains intact. I would like to go through those three things to point out why it is important that this definition be in the bill and not just left to regional forest agreements which, under this bill, we in the parliament are unable to see or change.Firstly, biodiversity means the diversity of species, both plants and animals, that are in our forests. The proposal is that 15 per cent of the original distribution of each forest ecosystem—each type of forest there is—should be protected. Surely we can spell that out. Where forest ecosystems are vulnerable to extinction, then at least 60 per cent of their remaining extent should be reserved. That is what the national forest policy says. That is what we should be writing in here. And the ecosystems of all remaining rare and endangered forest that is listed as such should be reserved and protected. That is commonsense. All parties agreed to that in the process of evolving this legislation.When we move to the requirements on old-growth forest itself—this means intact old forests, which are in short supply in this country after 200 years of exploitation—the national forest policy aims are that old-growth forest, where it is rare and depleted—and it is usually down to less than 10 per cent of its original distribution—should be protected wherever possible. The forest ecosystem should be protected; that is commonsense. For other forest ecosystems, 60 per cent of the old-growth forests identified at the time of the assessment would be protected. This leads on to wilderness, and it was agreed by everybody that 90 per cent, or more if possible, of the high quality wilderness that is left—that is, areas over 8,000 hectares—should be protected in reserves. So let us say so. It is really important.Let us look at the picture in Tasmania and elsewhere where these regional forest agreements have been signed. If you look at biodiversity in Tasmania, there has been no recovery plan—flouting these laid out guidelines. Through you, Chair, I ask the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, to come back to me on these statements of fact, as I have them. There is no recovery plan yet adopted for Astacopsis gouldi, the giant crayfish. This is the largest freshwater crayfish in the world. These animals are really spectacular. They grow to much more than a metre in length—up to a 1½ metres in length—and they weigh up to four kilograms. But they are very vulnerable to changes in their ecosystem. In particular, they are very vulnerable to mud coming down streams. The biggest worry there is logging roads going into regions like the Tarkine wilderness and, moreover, the forest being cut off the steep hill slopes. The eroded mud goes down into the streams and suffocates the ecosystem in which these amazing animals live.There has also been logging of habitats in the north-east of Tasmania which has led to very heartfelt community protests because it is threatening the north-east forest snail, which is a large orange-coloured native snail with a big shell on its back. It is a beautiful animal which has been listed as endangered. In addition to that, the Simson stag beetle—the sort you sometimes see in large brochures—is also threatened in this region and is listed as endangered. What has happened under this process since the regional forest agreement was signed the year before last? The state government has failed to identify the critical habitat of these species. It simply has no definition of where they live and where they do not, despite the state legislation calling for that. The forests concerned are being logged and turned into pine plantations. Is that the promise, the balance, that the government is talking about in this matter? If it is not, then let us make sure that at least we have written into this legislation the promise of the government that the national forest policy would be upheld, because that would prevent this sort of breach of the whole spirit of these regional forest agreements.In East Gippsland the regional forest agreement has failed to take account of scientific data on owl populations. This has been a matter of discussion both locally and across the state of Victoria. The regional forest agreement ignored the impacts on biodiversity of the clear-felling of the forests and the loss therefore of the older trees which have the hollows in them which are absolutely crucial for the nesting of species like the large owls, despite the fact that the areas which are being clear-felled have been listed or are required to prevent the threat to flora and fauna under state laws. Two of the seven crucial habitats in East Gippsland for the endangered tiger quoll—the native tiger cat; a marsupial—have been lost to logging. And 6,500 hectares of forest previously protected was allocated to woodchipping, including 3,500 hectares of crucial habitat for large owls like the powerful owl, the sooty owl and the masked owl and some of the habitat for the spotted-tailed quoll, which faces extinction on the mainland.With that sort of thing, how can Australians, who are in the main—to say the least—concerned about the protection of endangered species including the forests themselves, be expected to have any faith in this legislation which locks into place the destruction of these habitats for 20 years, with the federal minister for the environment handcuffed, effectively, and unable to do anything because the power has been given to the states as far as the environment is concerned? In the Central Highlands of Victoria the regional forest agreement has failed to protect the state's fauna emblem—Leadbeater's possum—because there are going to be high intensity burns over and adjacent to much of that possum's territory, and salvage logging will be allowed within its critical habitat—the dragging away of logs from that habitat that is important to the very emblem of Victoria. The regional forest agreement failed to put in place scientific recommendations from the world expert in this matter, Dr David Lindenmayer, that would have reduced timber supply by less than 15 per cent. What is the response to the criteria agreed by this government that would protect such species? No new national parks at all and no new state parks to protect these habitats in the Central Highlands of Victoria.The old-growth criteria look at the trees themselves and the tree communities. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Wilson Tuckey, is on the public record as saying that the 60 per cent target for old growth—that is, protecting what is left of the remnant old-growth forests of this nation—is suddenly optional. It is no longer the amount that was determined and agreed to be protected; it has suddenly become optional. Amongst other things, he has done that to try to welsh on the arrangement with the New South Wales government. Therefore, there is an avenue there for protection of less—or indeed none at all—if people want to engage in this shifty type of process with the key types of rare forest that Australians were led to believe would be protected under this process.Of course, it is the species which are most sought after, most profitable for the loggers—like the tall Eucalyptus regnans in Tasmania and Victoria—on which the targets have specifically not been met. The Tasmanian RFA, especially with respect to tall forest, has simply failed. The RFA is good at saving forests the loggers never wanted, because they are not large—the snow gums on the central plateau or the stunted forest in infertile soils—but when you get to the grand giants of the forest it is a different matter altogether.Let us look at the biggest of the lot: Eucalyptus regnans—the Latin name meaning `the king'. It is the tallest true hardwood tree on earth. Of the original 100,000 hectares, 13 per cent remains as old growth. Only one-third of that has been formally reserved—one-third of the 13 per cent. So we are down to four per cent or five per cent—well short of the target of 60 per cent. I correct that: 35 per cent has been protected, about half of the target of 60 per cent. Another third has been targeted for total destruction by logging, with a similar situation for other tall forests. That is simply cheating on the community expectation that there would be some form of balance here at least; that when you got to the most important because they are the most rare—and in this case, the most awesome of Australia's forest remnants—they would get special protection. It is not so here. In the main, they are not being adequately protected or they are being handed across to the woodchip corporations.I have given some questions to Senator Troeth in past days to help ascertain exactly what the situation is as far as the grand forests of Tasmania are concerned. We are talking here about forest trees scraping 100 metres high. These are the second tallest trees in the world after the giant redwoods of California. They are the tallest flowering plants and the tallest hardwoods on the planet. They are the single tallest giants of the forests in the whole Southern Hemisphere. So I ask Senator Troeth: how many of these Eucalyptus regnans, the kings of the forest, have never been logged—both old growth and regrowth? And how many of the wet Eucalyptus obliqua forests, also giants, have never been logged? Add to that: Eucalyptus delegatensis. Here we are looking at three species which are absolutely awesome giants. They are the ones, by the way, that attract people in their thousands and create jobs in regional and rural areas simply because of their magnificence. I would like a response about the figures on how many of these particular species remain.16:41:007754Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Senator Brown actually placed those questions on notice in the Notice Paper to Senator Hill. No doubt Senator Hill will be answering those questions in due course.16:41:007754Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am now putting them to the parliamentary secretary, who has the advisers here who have that information. We cannot proceed sensibly in this place if that basic information—the fate of the forests, which is what this bill is about—is not available to her. Senator Hill will no doubt be consulting exactly the same people the parliamentary secretary now has direct access to. We are not going to be able to progress in terms of getting these definitions right or in terms of a debate about why we should have these definitions if the parliamentary secretary does not have the information about how the definitions that have been evolved in this national forest policy are being kept up by the legislation. We were told that the legislation was going to make sure that, where there is rare and endangered old-growth forests, it would be implemented to give them protection over the years ahead. Surely the parliamentary secretary is going to be able to tell us what is left of these three species in Tasmania—the three grandest species of the lot—as a benchmark, so that we can know and she can tell us with reassurance that they are going to be protected, as this legislation says they will, as the national forest policy says they would and as the definition I have put forward would ensure.16:43:007754Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I have already indicated the avenue through which Senator Brown placed these questions on notice, and that is the avenue through which he will be answered.16:43:007754Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Chair, you will have to agree that this is totally unsatisfactory. I can ask ministers any questions I like but, when it gets to dealing with legislation, the government representative on key questions is expected to inform the committee. You cannot just say, `Well, they've been asked of somebody else and I therefore don't have a responsibility.' It is a process where Senator Hill, who is not the minister for logging, might be seeking the information from Senator Troeth. But Senator Troeth has an obligation, a responsibility, to have this key information for this committee to consider. We are rapidly getting into the position here where the senator has said, `Look, I'm in charge of this legislation, but other ministers have the information. I simply do not know.' We cannot allow that to stand. I ask the parliamentary secretary if she is prepared—if she says Senator Hill has the information and she does not know—to get that information from Senator Hill and have it available to the committee before the day is out.16:44:007755Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—This is a question of Senate process. I have already indicated that, as these questions have been placed on notice to Senator Hill, that is the avenue through which these questions will be answered.16:44:007755Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It certainly is a process that has gone off the rails in the hands of this inadequate government representative. We are dealing with this legislation and we are dealing with it now. Is Senator Troeth going to tell the committee that vital information for this debate will be supplied to the Senate after the debate is over? It is not a question of `if'—that is what she is saying. That is a deplorable way in which to treat Senate consideration. For those people listening, the question here is: how does the Senate work when a responsible representative of government who has carriage of this bill, who has advisers in the box, who has access to all the information of the government at her fingertips, says, `I'll give you the information after the debate is over.' That is simply a default on a responsibility so far as parliamentary process is concerned.It is not satisfactory, and I will be asking this question again during the course of this debate. As Senator Troeth knows, we are not going to finish here today. She is indicating that we are not going to get this information this afternoon because she is not going to ask for it. She is going to have overnight to ask for it and I will be back to it. It is not satisfactory to the majority of Australians, who expect representatives to be informed, to find that a ministerial representative comes here without information that is crucial to these questions and, moreover, says in an inherently defiant way to the committee, `I'm not going to supply this information until after the debate is over.' Whatever we might think about logging in Australia, that is a clear-felling of proper democratic process. It is deliberate obfuscation and it is unbecoming of a person charged with the responsibility to conduct an informed debate in this place.16:46:007755Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Senator Brown has misrepresented the case. I have not said that I will not supply the answers to his questions until the debate is over. I have already indicated that Senator Brown asked the questions and it is printed in the Notice Paper that the questions were to Senator Hill. Therefore, Senator Hill is the minister responsible who will supply those answers, and that should be Senator Brown's expectation.16:47:007755Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Mr Temporary Chairman, you might care to rule on whether asking questions of Senator Hill in any way prevents the parliamentary secretary giving answers now. This debate is now. If the parliamentary secretary wants to put off the debate until Senator Hill provides the answers, I will be the first to support her, but I am not going to support a situation in which Senator Troeth says, `I'll give this committee'—not just me as the person who happens to be asking these questions but the committee—`fundamental information about the protection of forests in this country after this debate is over.' We have had too much of this in this debate. We have had too much withholding of information. We have had too much secrecy. These are the people's forests, and the people have a right to be informed about their fate. For a ministerial representative to say, `I'm not going to inform this parliament until the debate is over,' so that the debate has to be effectively blinkered, is just reprehensible.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—Senator Brown, I am ready to rule on the subject. You are entitled to ask the questions even though the questions have been placed on notice. As to the manner in which the parliamentary secretary responds, that is her prerogative.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. That leaves Senator Troeth totally exposed as being responsible. She has yet another chance here, after that ruling, to provide us with this information. A simple call to her ministerial colleague, if he has got the information, would be enough. What I do know is that that information is in the government's bailiwick; it has that information. It is, to say the least, a rude way to approach the debate in here to say, `I've got the information, but I'm not going to give it to the Senate chamber until after the debate is over.' I could say that means a vulnerability, that means that the government is not prepared to get into a fair dinkum and informed debate on this. That is pretty obvious. But I think it is worse than that. It is an affront to senators debating this issue if information which is available is denied in the course of the debate.Senator Troeth or the government needs to look at democratic principle. As Ralph Nader said on a visit to this country many years ago—you might remember this, Mr Temporary Chairman Watson, because these words were uttered in Launceston—information is the currency of democracy. Here we have a democratic debate on behalf of the people on a matter that is of high public interest. The government has the information, but the government representative at the desk is saying, `Yes, but I'm not going to give it to you until after the debate is over.' That is a failure of responsibility, and it says that the government is not prepared to defend this untenable position—handing across Australia's forests for 20 years to the woodchip corporations—in light of the information that is available to it. People will have to judge that for themselves.I have never struck this situation before in parliamentary debate. As far as I am concerned, it is a new low. I would not be making such an issue of this if this were not so important. Senator Troeth might think it is not important. It is to me, it is to the people who elected me, it is to my state and it is to many people employed in industries whose jobs depend on keeping those trees vertical, keeping those grand heritage trees there for people to enjoy into the future. For this deliberate withholding of information to come so early in this debate really shows that the government is being cavalier not only with the information but also with the interests of the people of this nation.16:51:007756Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I must echo the words of Senator Brown and concur that in a debate as important as this, where the government is arguing so strongly that its legislation is balanced and fair in both environmental and economic terms, it must be prepared to prove that when asked to do so in terms of simple questions. It does not matter to me that the answers to these questions might be difficult for the government. I feel that Senator Brown, having asked those questions, can rightfully expect answers, and I do not think that procrastination on this matter from a ministerial representative is acceptable.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that the amendment be agreed to.16:52:007756Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I have not yet had the opportunity to comment on Senator Brown's amendment, which he moved before lunch.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I'm waiting too.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—I do not believe that Senator Forshaw has either and I am sure—through you, Mr Temporary Chairman—that we would not wish for either Senator Forshaw or me to lack the opportunity to put our remarks on record. Senator Brown did appear to become slightly distracted from the original thrust of his amendment.This proposed amendment attempts to establish the JANIS criteria as the inflexible benchmark that all RFAs will have to meet. This is clearly—I would point out to Senator Brown—not contemplated by the JANIS report itself. At page 8 of that report the underlying principle in applying the comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve criteria is clear. This is what it says:To ensure that the nature conservation effort is focused on regional priorities, and not based solely on meeting criterion percentage targets, it is desirable that an overall regional assessment of forest conservation needs to be carried out. Flexibility in the application of reserve criteria is needed, in consideration of differing regional circumstances, to ensure that the CAR reserve system delivers optimal nature conservation outcomes as well as acceptable social and economic outcomes. Therefore the criteria described in section 6—that is, biodiversity, old-growth forest and wilderness criteria—are to be considered as guidelines rather than as mandatory targets.The bill's definition of the CAR reserve system allows for that flexibility while the comments about the CAR reserve system—contained in page 5 of the explanatory memorandum to the bill—ensure that the principles concerning comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness—as detailed in the JANIS report—are consistently applied to all regions. Therefore the government strongly opposes this amendment.16:54:007757Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition is not prepared to support this amendment. In saying so I would indicate that what has just been put by the parliamentary secretary is a reasonable interpretation. Whilst we have some differences with the government on many of these issues, the facts are that the proposed amendment by Senator Brown is very inflexible. For instance, both the national forest policy statement of 1992 and the subsequent JANIS criteria that were developed out of that statement do not accept that all reserve systems would necessarily be dedicated. Senator Brown's proposal is that a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system in relation to an RFA means a dedicated reserve system. So, firstly, there is a problem there.Secondly, as the parliamentary secretary alluded to, the terms `comprehensive, ad equate and representative' are in fact defined by the national forest policy statement and are repeated in the JANIS criteria. Senator Brown's proposal would be a significant straitjacket, an inflexible restriction, on the approach to be adopted in applying those criteria during the course of developing an RFA.We have to say that the government's own definition, on the face of it, is somewhat inadequate. A definition that merely refers to what can be found elsewhere in another document is often not the most illuminating way of writing definitions in legislation. This one says:comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, in relation to an RFA, has the same meaning as in the RFA.Obviously, the layperson picking that up would say, `That is a bit circuitous. I have to go off elsewhere to find the appropriate meaning.' Whilst that is an inadequacy in the definition, the fact is—as we have said and as we have identified in our amendments—that these are principles and terms which are to be found throughout the national forest policy statement, which in turn is clearly understood by the parties. On that basis we will accept the definition as proposed by the government and we cannot support the proposition of Senator Brown.16:58:007757Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What a pity that Labor as well does not want a definition which means anything. In this case both Labor and the government have resorted to the word `flexibility'. You know what that means: as soon as a woodchip company jumps up and down about their wanting to knock down another bit of forest, the terms and definitions protecting rare and endangered species and great pieces of wild forest become flexible, and more of it goes west.What about the flexibility the other way round? A little later in this bill, I think when we get to section 7, there is provision to cover the woodchip companies if they do not get what they want because a future federal minister in responding to public concern protects some forest. Is there flexibility for that? Not on your life. Then we get a com pensation clause so that the taxpayers have to pay millions of dollars across to the woodchip company, which is aggrieved because it cannot knock down a forest because there is a rare and endangered species in it. There is no flexibility at all. That is the pathology of this legislation. It is all weighted to give this voracious industry what it wants over 20 years and the environment has to take a back seat, regardless of the feelings of the majority of people, not least those who live in these areas.So I do not accept this flexibility from either side of the chamber when it is not honoured throughout. It is a flexibility against the environment, but there is no flexibility when it comes to the interests of the big woodchip corporations that, I note in passing, make major donations to the electoral coffers of the major political parties in this place, not without the intention of gaining influence.I want to come back to the comment of the parliamentary secretary. Senator Troeth said that this legislation has to be flexible because of regional circumstances. Let me come back to the giant freshwater crayfish in regional north-west Tasmania—that is the only place where it is found. It is the largest freshwater crayfish on the face of the planet. It is an ancient animal. It is a stunning but very vulnerable animal, and its biggest threat is logging because logging cuts it off from its food source. That is the only region involved. Can Senator Troeth explain why there is no recovery plan, as would be required under national forest policy, to protect such species and why there is no plan to stop logging of its habitat? In fact, logging has accelerated.And while the parliamentary secretary is getting advice, Mr Temporary Chairman McKiernan, I again draw your attention to this photograph of the Tarkine Wilderness aflame from end to end under so-called ecologically sustainable logging. I have now distributed this photograph around the chamber, and I seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard with the label `Ecologically sustainable logging in the Tarkine Wilderness in Tasmania'.Leave granted.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—Senator Brown, I am just checking on the matter of incorporation. We are not certain about the technicalities of incorporating photographs into Hansard , but that can be handled by the technicians.[For technical reasons, the photograph was unable to be reproduced in Hansard]17:03:007758Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—With regard to Senator Brown's questions, that is a question for the Tasmanian government to undertake in its arrangements for its own RFA.Senator Brown interjecting—GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Senator Brown, you have said several times in your comments that that is a matter to be handled by the state in its own arrangements with regard to the RFA. In my own state of Victoria I know very well the wide scope and the long-term nature of the consultations that went on about environmental and ecological sustainability. Anyone who had a view on that, as far as the eventual nature of the RFA, was encouraged to put that in the consultations that took place. I am satisfied that every element of that was taken into consideration with the framing of that RFA. Similarly, that is for the Tasmanian government to take into account when the final nature of the Tasmanian RFA is determined, or has been determined. It is not a matter for the Commonwealth to deal with. That is all I want to say with regard to that.17:04:007758Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That is quite wrong. This is national legislation that is to tie in agreements made between the state and Commonwealth authorities. Suddenly the government says, `Oh well, we've brought up the issue that we can't really look at species and tie down their protection through a specific definition that the Greens have come up with because, regionally, the circumstances might vary.' So I ask Senator Troeth, `What about the specific situation of a fantastic, endangered animal, the world's largest freshwater crayfish, in a regional area? How do you deal with that?' And immediately the government ducks and says, `We don't deal with it at all; that is a state government responsibility.'This legislation is to ensure, to write into law, the protection of rare and endangered species in this country—in forests, where half of them exist. That is why we need it to be specific, because the government manoeuvre here is to get rid of the federal power of intervention and to hand it back to the states. But it is saying that the quid pro quo is that we will write into this legislation, and into these regional forest agreements, absolute protection of rare and endangered species.But what we have uncovered from the government itself, and from Senator Troeth herself, is that you can have no faith in that at all. First of all, a rubbery definition is required—unfortunately, Labor wants to support that—which has to be flexible; in other words, it can be altered down the line. Nothing is certain about that at all. And, secondly, we are to have faith in state governments as far as forests are concerned when the minister divests power back to the states—unfortunately, the Democrats supported legislation for this just six weeks ago—to intervene and protect heartland areas of Australia's forests, including rare and endangered species. What we are finding here is that, really, this is a handback to the states under flexible arrangements whereby the states can operate as they did in the bad old days in the 1970s, before federal law started to be introduced and built up to protect the nation's prime heritage.Specifically, we have come to the point where the government has revealed that it does not give guarantees for rare and endangered species. All those people who took part in this process of evolving the regional forest agreements, who felt that this was going to give the balance that Senator Troeth talks about—assurance of the woodchip industry's interest on the one side, and assurance of the environment on the other—have been duped. When it comes to protecting rare and endangered species and intact forest ecosystems, suddenly we have to be flexible.Senator Troeth interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Troeth shakes her head and says, `Yes, that is the case,' but when it comes to the woodchip corporations there is no flexibility at all. Protect a tree in future, using federal powers and compensation. Taxpayers' money will be used to protect taxpayers' trees in the interests of the big corporations. It is two faced, it is duplicitous, it is not balanced, it is not fair, it is not publicly responsible, and it uses double standards.I am not speculating. This is coming out of the mouth of the government representative herself to try to avoid a Greens amendment which says, `Let's be specific here. This is legislation for 20 years, not just for tomorrow. This is lock-down legislation with no comeback, because there will be no federal powers after this.' They do not want to put in a Greens' definition. Senator Troeth is right: I would protect what is left of our old-growth forests in this country.At a library function at lunchtime I heard a brilliant dissertation from independent expert Judy Clarke on the plantation establishment in this country, which is there now—grown and ready to be cut—for all Australia's wood needs and job creation. The plantations are ignored in this process. It is honing in on our native forests, totally unnecessarily, in the interests of the big corporations, and it does not protect the environment. There is not only a breach of promise here; there is no promise at all.Senator Troeth now uses the word `flexibility' when it comes to protecting the environment. In other words, `Leave it to the woodchip corporations.' That is the bottom line. That is not acceptable to the Australian community. It is totally unacceptable to the majority of Australians, who have had enough of that and who know that this can be a win-win situation—that the alternatives are there for the industry. But to these rare and endangered species down to their last habitats there is no alternative.Let us look again at East Gippsland. I will go outside the questions that are on notice. My office tells me that Senator Troeth got the questions we are talking about two days ago. They did not go just to Senator Hill, as they have done in the past; they went to Senator Troeth herself. What has she done in the meantime? Nothing. She is using the fact that the questions also went to Senator Hill to deliberately deny this debate the information that is essential for an intelligent outcome.Earlier on I referred to the north-east forest snail in Tasmania. It is a huge orange-coloured snail with a big carapace on its back. It is on the endangered list. Senator Troeth might find that mirthful but I do not and nor do the locals, who are worried about its viability. It is a fascinating thing for tourists who go to that area, and it is a job creator, strangely enough. Mr Temporary Chairman McKiernan, you may have seen those cartoons which say, `The closer we get something to extinction, the greater the value.' That is one of the unfortunate equations in the circumstances we find ourselves on this planet at the end of this century.Coming back to this snail, there has been huge publicity about it. It has been front-page news in the Examiner in Launceston, and elsewhere. It has motivated a lot of people. Local residents are involved to try to stop the bulldozers moving in on its endangered habitat. Can the parliamentary secretary assure this chamber that, under this flexible definition—we are talking about a very regional creature indeed—the protection of the remains of the habitat of those endangered species will be guaranteed?17:13:007760Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The RFA and each RFA for each region will provide the framework within which endangered species are to be protected, consistent with Commonwealth legislative protection. The Commonwealth will ensure that the state undertakes its responsibilities within the terms of the RFA. We are not aware of any breach of existing RFAs in relation to endangered species.17:13:007760Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Thank you. That has helped us to move along a little. The parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, has just said that the regional forest agreement in Tasmania will provide the framework for endangered species like the one I referred to. Could the parliamentary secretary tell the chamber what that framework is?17:14:007760Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—We do have a copy of the Tasmanian RFA, but I am not aware of the detail.17:14:007760Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have a copy of the RFA and I am not aware of the detail either, because there is no plan in there for the protection of that species. It is just a handover to a state government. As far as this endangered species is concerned, Forestry Tasmania and the state government are about to change the rules. They are about to cut out the area that is inhabited by this endangered species which the loggers want and say that the loggers can have that and it will still be all okay. That is flexibility a la Senator Troeth, who obviously does not know the first thing about this species despite the repeated visits she has had to Tasmania in the capacity which is so important to this debate.We know that some 3,500 hectares of crucial habitat for large owls in East Gippsland have been allocated to woodchipping. As far as the masked owl, the sooty owl and the powerful owl are concerned, can the minister say what the framework is for protection of these magnificent species in East Gippsland to ensure, in particular, their habitat, without which they will not survive?17:16:007760Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—That will be laid out within the framework of the Gippsland RFA. Again, I repeat to Senator Brown: we are not aware of any breaches of that RFA insofar as the Commonwealth has responsibility. I suggest to him that, if he has particular concerns with the Tasmanian RFA that he has just detailed, that is something for him to take up with the Tasmanian government, which now has the responsibility for implementing that.17:16:007760Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What an appalling situation we are getting to here. The Commonwealth is divesting itself totally of its responsibility to protect rare and endangered species and their habitat and is saying, `Fall back on Jeff Kennett' or `Fall back on Jim Bacon'—with their record on their environment? At the same time, it is asking us to move towards passing legislation here which further removes the power of the federal environment minister. So much of it was removed with the government and Democrat vote just six weeks ago. It is asking us to pass legislation which will further trammel that power to protect these species which are part of Australia's wildlife heritage.But even so, Senator Troeth says to me, `This is now a matter for the Tasmanian government under the RFAs.' That is not so. If you look at the environmental impact assessment provision of the RFA in the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement and go to section 32 under `Threatened Species and Communities', it says:Where threatened species are listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas.) and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992—a Commonwealth piece of legislation—any new or revised Recovery Plans will be jointly prepared and funded and implemented cooperatively by the Parties to meet the requirements of both Acts.So the framework here, we discover, is not a state responsibility. The minister did not know that. Maybe she should go back to her advisers and find out what the facts are, because in effect the Senate has just been misled by Senator Troeth. Section 33 says:The Parties will seek to improve outcomes of Recovery Plans for species listed under either the Threatened Species Protection Act . . . or . . . Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 . . . by developing multiple species Recovery Plans where appropriate.The parliamentary secretary says that the RFA in Tasmania will provide the framework for endangered species. Wrong. It does provide for that, but it requires action—and I am talking about a Regional Forest Agreement that was signed by Prime Minister Howard and the Tasmanian government two years back.Here we have the opportunity for the Senate—and therefore the people of Australia—to be informed about the necessary protection of rare and endangered species. These species—magnificent mammals, birds and fish—are in Western Australia's forests. They are also in south-east Queensland, and right up both sides of the Great Divide in New South Wales and in East Gippsland. The parliamentary secretary gave information a while ago that it was a state matter. Has she been advised that in fact it is not, that it is a Commonwealth responsibility? Having said that there is a framework for endangered species that applies in East Gippsland and Tasmania, can she tell us what the framework is that her government has been developing with state governments?17:20:007761Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Of course there is a joint responsibility. When the Commonwealth and the states sign the RFA agreement, that joint responsibility is undertaken by both of them. Senator Brown seems to be deliberately misunderstanding what I am trying to tell him. Each of these RFAs is developed with a regional focus and a regional framework to take account of regional differences.The Commonwealth responsibility, as a co-signatory to that agreement, still remains. Obviously, if there has been a breach of that agreement, in not looking after the areas which are specifically designated in that agreement, that would need to be brought forward in a formal way. I am not aware, as I stand in this chamber, of any formal notification that has been issued of any breaches of any of those agreements that we have spoken about. Of course, the Commonwealth will play its role in the furtherance of any notification of breaches of those agreements if and when they occur. To the best of my knowledge, no notification has been lodged. That is the situation as it stands at the moment.17:21:007761Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We are talking here about rare and endangered species of Australia's animals, birds and forests, and the parliamentary secretary is saying that action will take place when notification of a breach of an agreement has taken place. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the government spokesperson's earlier assurance that this legislation had in place the framework for protecting these species in the first place. I am not talking about breaches down the line. I want to know about the plan to protect these species now.What I am saying is that they are not going to be protected under this double standard legislation, and there is a clear case for it in north-east Tasmania, where endangered species are now having their territory carved and reassessed under state legislation and diminished so that the loggers can get a part of it—a vital part of it at that. The Commonwealth has role to see that does not happen. But Senator Troeth appears not to know about the endangered species, not to know about the case that is involved, not able to give details of the framework that she talks about, and not able to give any indication that the Commonwealth is involved at all, let alone that it is standing by its responsibility.I am pushing this specific case because here we are getting a glimmer of the double standards—the flexibility that the parliamentary secretary talks about—which are going to leave the woodchip industry as arbiter through this legislation when the powers are handed away by the Commonwealth, and I cannot allow that to pass lightly. I cannot allow that to pass lightly because we are dealing here with the time-honoured forest heritage and the wildlife of this nation—half the species of which are in the forests targeted by this legislation. As I said earlier, the government wants to throw away its responsibility for those forests and species and give them to the woodchip corporations—and under a double standard where there is no guarantee that the habitat of these species will be protected. But when it comes to the woodchip industry's interests, if you so much as protect a tree in the future through Commonwealth action, they get the compensation. The taxpayers lose again; remembering, of course, that the taxpayers are the owners of these forests.This brings me to the issue of an indigenous interest in these rare and endangered forests. I had a call from the Deloraine Aboriginal community at the end of last week, and people there told me with some anxiety that they had just learned that a new area of forest is to be cut down on the slopes of Quamby Bluff, which is part of an area of enormous indigenous significance, in what is called the Great Western Tiers in post-invasion times in Tasmania. My understanding at the start of this week was that the indigenous people who had not been informed about what was going to happen to their forests were seeking a meeting with Forestry Tasmania in the immediate lead-up to the bulldozers moving in.I ask Senator Troeth, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman: is this standard? When forests in indigenous communities are targeted by the big woodchip corporations—which are centred in the cities, not out in the bush—and by Forestry Tasmania and CALM in Western Australia, where is the guarantee in this legislation that these communities will be involved? Where is the guarantee that these communities, which do care about rare and endangered species and which have had to live through the destruction of habitats which has led so many species towards extinction, will be involved—if not on that matter, then on any matter at all as far as the future of forests in this country is concerned? Why isn't their interest written into this legislation as at least a brake on the future destruction of forests as the Commonwealth moves through this legislation to divest itself of any responsibility for what happens in the next 20 years?17:27:007762Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I think that Senator Brown has obviously not taken any notice of what I have been saying with regard to rare and endangered species. I have said that there can be clauses written into each separate regional RFA to deal with any threatened extinction or threatened endangering of rare species. But I would like to place some facts on the record, in comparison to some of the myths that Senator Brown is tending to perpetuate. I will quote from two letters written to the Hobart Mercury newspaper in Tasmania on Tuesday, 16 March 1999. One letter is from Mr Simon Orr, who is a senior planner in forest management in Forestry Tasmania. With regard to the rare giant freshwater crayfish, Mr Orr says:The reports about the rarity perpetuate a furphy. This crayfish inhabits almost all watercourses emptying into Bass Strait, as well as others such as the Arthur River. There are many thousands of this species in existence. A recovery plan—for your information, Senator Brown—is being developed for this species as an outcome of the RFA.I hope that answers your question on that. I might add that Mr Orr has also said, as the final paragraph of his letter:One only wonders at the motivation of those who perpetuate misinformation about this species to the media and the public.The second letter I would like to quote from comes from the same issue of the same newspaper, and it is a letter from Mr Kevin J. Bonham, from the Centre for Environmental Studies at the University of Tasmania in Hobart. He says:I am astonished that green groups are claiming that the north-east forest snail is threatened by logging in the Cascade forests. Had they read my report on this snail, a public document based on a two month study, they would know it is neither rare nor threatened.He goes on:It is relatively common and very widespread. This snail is nowhere near qualifying for threatened status and should be de-listed so that conservation resources and attention can go to species that need it.I am particularly interested in his last paragraph, where he says:Unfortunately, greens seem more interested in excuses to block logging than the facts, and are running an ignorant public campaign against the snail's de-listing, in a shabby attempt to pervert the assessment process.I put that on the public record.In regard to the involvement of indigenous groups in the consultative process, every community in Australia cares about rare and endangered species. In the consultation process that I mentioned, with every RFA that now exists and for the ones that are yet to come, every community has the opportunity to contribute to public debate on and the public assessment of this process. In that way, every community group is contacted, every community group has an opportunity to voice its concern and then, and only then, is the RFA drawn up to cater for those concerns.17:30:007763Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The parliamentary secretary gets into deeper and deeper water because she does not know about this issue. First of all, let me refer again to the letter from Mr Bonham. One thing that was not stated in that letter was that he was employed by Forestry Tasmania to do that study. However, he gives the game away by saying that this species should be de-listed. He is employed by the agent of the loggers and says that this species should be de-listed. I ask Senator Troeth: why was it listed in the first place? It was listed in the first place because scientists working in the field believed—and they still believe—that it is threatened with extinction and that the logging is certainly not going to diminish that threat. You do not have to be a scientist to recognise that that is the case.What is happening in Tasmania—and this is a very good example—is that the loggers, post signing of the regional forest agreement which is supposed to protect the environment, now want the area which is the habitat of this species. So Forestry Tasmania gets in a consultant who says, `Let's change the boundaries.' If Mr Bonham were a scientist in the full sense of the word, he would not be resorting to calling ignorant those with a different opinion, let alone those in the scientific community who have a different point of view.The same applies to the earlier reference. A major endangered species is being taken closer to extinction because the logging industry wants flexibility—it wants the habitat of that species. Some corridors, bits and pieces and rocky outcrops will be left. When a complaint comes in further down the line—as Senator Troeth says is now the public's responsibility—it may, as often happens, be too late. As far as Astacopis gouldi—the giant freshwater crayfish, the biggest crayfish in the world—is concerned, two years after the signing of the regional forest agreement, in the north-west of Tasmania logging is a major threat to the survival of this species and there is no recovery plan. When are we going to have it? Will it be 10 years? Will it be 20 years?In the meantime, logging roads are being driven deeper into the Tarkine and into the river catchments elsewhere in north-west Tasmania. As I said earlier, the process is to cut the forests and then firebomb them with incendiaries dropped from helicopters to kill rainforest species so that nothing is left alive—nothing with fur, feathers or leaves. Then, at the end of its process of so-called ecologically sustainable logging, the woodchippers' agents come in with 1080 poison to get any creatures that stray onto the genetically modified, fast growing crops which replace the ancient ecosystem.The lie is that this is ecologically sustainable logging. As far as this endangered, world famous freshwater crayfish is concerned, this legislation and the regional forest agreement open up the forests of the Tarkine and elsewhere to roading and logging in the headwaters of the stronghold of this species, with consequent erosion and mud siltation which cuts off the food supply. Senator Troeth is no different from a freshwater crayfish when it comes to depending on a food supply—and no imputation is meant either way. It is an appalling situation. I am not talking about some pre-existing situation. I am talking about the outcome of a regional forest agreement. We bring here a definition which locks down the requirement to protect these species—the outcome of the national forest policy—and the government and Labor as well, for goodness sake, say, `We will not support it. We want flexibility for the woodchippers.'Let me come back to a specific question which I asked earlier. I told the members of the Deloraine community that I would ask this question in the Senate. Now that the parliamentary secretary has had time to consider it, I would like her to tell the chamber what the immediate logging plans on Quamby Bluff are, what the impact on its forest ecosystems will be, and what reassurance she can give the chamber that there will not be a recurrence of this situation where logging becomes imminent without the local indigenous community being informed.17:36:007764Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—As Senator Brown would be well aware, I do not have access to that information.17:36:007764Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—It appears that the parliamentary secretary does not have access to any information and, where she has got it—we have heard this in committee this afternoon, Mr Temporary Chairman, and I am sure you have had an ear glued to it—she will not give it. I have never seen the situation in this place before where the government could get the information and it has not. A phone call would get the information about the indigenous community. I will come back to it tomorrow and I expect the parliamentary secretary to know. The parliamentary secretary talks about grassroots communities in regional Australia—here is one which has a right to know what is happening in their neighbourhood when the interstate based woodchip corporations move in. It is simply unsatisfactory that, in this important debate, the government says, `We don't know' or, even where it does know, it says, `We're not going to tell the Senate.'Earlier, I referred to the situation in East Gippsland, where the state's emblem, Leadbeater's possum—we have all seen that magnificent, cute little animal of which I think even Jeff Kennett would be proud—is facing extinction because it has a very limited habitat. Through the regional forest agreement, its habitat is now under threat. This is an extraordinary circumstance where, even with the state's emblem, the federal government wants to tie its hands behind its back.We have not got the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 through yet. I ask the parliamentary secretary: what effort has been made, what plan has been put into place under the Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreement, signed a long time ago, to protect the Leadbeater's possum from the high intensity burns which are going to be part of logging and woodchipping in that region, with, of course, death and destruction to everything in its way, and to salvage logging which is occurring in the critical habitat? Can the parliamentary secretary say why the recom mendation of Dr David Lindenmayer, the expert in this field—we are supposed to be dealing with science here—which would have reduced the cut in the region by 15 per cent, has not been taken up?17:39:007765Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—If Senator Brown requires detailed information about RFAs, we will be happy to make that information available as and when it becomes available.17:39:007765Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I do require it. I require it now for this debate, and so does the rest of the chamber. I am a representative in here. The people would want this debate to be based on information. Senator Troeth knows that and the government knows that. What we have heard this afternoon is a farrago of blocking and refusal to produce information or even to attempt to get it. We have even heard this representative say that where information is available she is not going to produce it for us.Let me analyse what is happening here. I will go back again because it is very important to understand the dynamics which led to a government, which is supposed to govern for all of us, turning its back on the wishes of the majority of the people of Australia as far as wild forests are concerned when there is an alternative of a plantation based industry for our jobs right now, in 1999, and for all the wood needs of this nation in the future.I want to highlight that this government is in the business of trying to deny the Australian people the rationale for handing across to the woodchip corporations the effective control of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hectares of what is left of our native forests in this country over the next 20 years. The thing that has Western Australia on the boil at the moment is the imminent loss of magnificent remnants of forest and the species that live in them. This representative may not care. Except for two members, the government benches are empty as we are having this debate. The government may not care but the people out there do.At lunch time, I was talking about this with a scientist. We strayed from science and said, `What is it that bonds people to forests? Why do people become activated about them?' The reason is that we are creatures of the forests ourselves. We are derived from this wild planet. Our ancestry is there. We have a relationship with it. It is in our creation, in our genetic structure, whatever it is. That is why when you ask school kiddies, `What is it that you like to watch on television?' they so often say, `Nature programs.' That is why Senator Troeth, like me, puts pictures of wilderness on the wall, not pictures of chainsaws and bulldozers.I cannot understand why this government is not responding to that public concern and growing alarm at this end of the century when so little of this forest resource is left. It is inspiring, it is beautiful, it fires the imagination and makes people feel good. I know, as a doctor, that it is a much better entity to have than a dozen tranquilliser factories.That natural equation, because it is not quantified, is left out of this. There are people sitting in board rooms in Bunnings in Perth, in North Forest Products down there in St Kilda Road and in Daishowa in Tokyo who, when they see forests, think dollars. They have money in mind. Sure, they have pictures of forests on the wall, but these are somebody else's forests. So they are happy to get stuck into them, and the last thing they want to hear is that there is an alternative to this ongoing slaughter through the plantation base that is already in Australia. That is what we should be dealing with—the translocation of this industry into the inevitable future, which is the plantation based future.We saw what happened in 1994 before the big loggers blockaded this parliament. So many of those people are now out of work because the woodchip industry has dispensed with them. The politicians, at the behest of the woodchip corporations which were behind that, went to water. If you look at the record, a fortnight before that an interesting phenomenon occurred. The government at the time was a Labor government. After a huge public outcry about the imminent distribution of more woodchip licences to these big corporations, on 21 December—I think it was—the then minister handed those corporations their licences. People did not want it, but the woodchip corporations did.In the last six months it has been uncovered that, on that very day, three of those big woodchip corporations wrote out massive cheques to the big political parties in this parliament. It is a corrupt process. It is wrong, and it comes out of secrecy and behind-doors negotiations. I am embarrassed to be in this chamber when a government representative gets up and says, `I am not only not going to supply information, I am also not going to give it to you where I've got it.' A simple phone call to the minister for the environment would have obtained that information. Instead we were told, `I am going to deny this chamber that information.'I am dwelling on this because this whole system is rotten to the core. It is corrupt. I reiterate what Ralph Nader, amongst others, has said—that information is the currency of democracy. When governments say not only that they do not have information on much of this but also that they are not going to give it to you where they do have it—that is a flagrant violation of that principle. It is not just political opponents who have a right to get their noses out of joint over that, it is people as a whole. It is an alarming thing to hear in a debate like this. I again ask the minister: is there some way in which that plan by Dr Lindenmayer to protect the Leadbeater's possum can be invoked under this system, so that Victoria's faunal emblem is not pushed a step closer to extinction by the burning of those forests and the salvage of so-called leftover logs in the region—part of the habitat of that species?17:48:007766Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—As I have indicated before, if and when that information becomes available, we will pass it on to Senator Brown.17:48:007766Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I indicate clearly and strongly that the Democrats support this amendment by Senator Brown, quite simply, because it is sensible and appropriate. In his amendment he speaks of the essential nature of having biodiversity criteria in relation to regional forestry agree ments. That makes great sense to me. I know from my own experience during a recent trip to the south-west forests of Western Australia, where I visited both the Manjimup and Pemberton areas, that the great concern there amongst a great many people, including locals in the area, is about the extinction rate of the numbat and the chuditch or native cat, as it is sometimes referred to—the Latin is Dasyurus geoffroii —to the extent that the head of the Small Business Association in Perth, Western Australia, is arguing very forcefully on behalf of his constituency for an end to logging in old-growth forests because of the way in which it benefits business. Time and again yesterday and today we have heard that it is the timber workers who have the most to gain from continued logging in old-growth forests. Yet the evidence is very much to the contrary. It is the preservation of these important natural historical areas that attract the most people in terms of tourism, ecotourism and the service industry which supports that. Senator Brown went on to talk about having old-growth forest criteria and also wilderness criteria within the RFA. I sew that into what I said earlier and, again, argue that the future of the forests, if we are really serious about the preservation of the forests and jobs, lies in the preservation and protection of those forests and not in their continued destruction.The timber industry, or rather logging as such, is not an industry as I see it but an obscenity. The challenge we have before us now is to have a serious and considered debate about the real prospects that exist for plantation timbers and removing ourselves once and for all from the destruction of our native forests. It is not just Senator Brown or the Democrats who are arguing that but overwhelming numbers in the general community. Nowhere is that more clear than in Western Australia, where polls show consistently that 80 per cent and increasingly greater numbers of people are saying, `Enough! No more.' To that end, Senator Brown's motion has the full support of the Australian Democrats.17:51:007766Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I do not want to leave a couple of questions without having assurances from Senator Troeth on behalf of the government. I come back to the Aboriginal concerns. There is an immediate one—in Quamby Bluff, near Deloraine in Tasmania. People are very alarmed that there is going to be logging, including clear-fell logging, on land that is very important to them. I ask the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, who clearly does not know anything about this, whether she will find out and give the chamber an assurance that the Aboriginal community in Deloraine will be consulted before that logging proceeds and that the concerns they have about that logging will be taken into account and acted upon. While the minister is getting information on that last question, I again ask about the reserve situation in Tasmania. Can the minister assure the chamber that the reserved areas—which set aside forest types in Tasmania—are not subject to mining?17:52:007767Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—With regard to Senator Brown's first query, that level of detail would have to be determined at a local level. As Senator Brown would be aware, some of the reserved areas are informal reserves which are allowed to be considered for mining purposes.17:53:007767Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Dear, oh dear! Can we have from Senator Troeth what the extent will be of those reserved areas which are open to mining? I can hear people listening to this saying, `Well, not so secure as we thought.' Can Senator Troeth say what is the extent of the areas in Tasmania of these so-called reserves we have heard so much about that is subject to potential mining?17:53:007767Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—That is public information which is available at the usual level of public information detail contained in the RFA agreements.17:54:007767Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We are going to get a reversal of role. I will get that information and inform the chamber. I do not want to press the government repre sentative any more. She is making an art form of not giving information, even where it is apparently on the public record. So I will find that out and I will give it to Senator Troeth before the debate is through, in a part of the process of trying to inform her about this portfolio for which she has responsibility.A moment ago Senator Troeth dismissed a very important question which I had about the Quamby Bluff issue. My office and I, directly, had calls last week about the imminent logging on this bluff, which, for your information, is an outstanding part of the backdrop of scenic northern Tasmania, probably snow-capped at the moment. The integrity of the forest below the dolerite cap on that bluff is very important for the scenic amenity of Deloraine, Meander, Jackeys Marsh, Golden Valley and so on.The government member at the table said that this issue would be determined `at a local level'. Can she tell us what that means? Here is the federal government saying, `We don't know. We have no responsibility.' This is the government that assures Australians that the RFA process is going to create protection for special parts of the environmental amenity. Does it mean the state government is going to determine it? Does it mean Forestry Tasmania, with their appalling record of destruction, is going to determine it? Is the forestry office in Deloraine going to determine it? Or is it going to be left to the local woodchip contractor to determine the fate of the interests of the indigenous people on Quamby Bluff? Let us have a little bit of specificity about this, if the minister does not want responsibility.There are people alarmed about this down there. This is not just something that is being invented. It is part of the process of logging which is alarming communities right around the country. But here there is an indigenous community that feels it is being left out. Its rights are being trodden on. It is not being informed and the parliamentary secretary says, `Oh well, that will be determined at a local level.' That is not good enough. I will not accept it. I would expect that Senator Troeth is able to tell this chamber, and therefore reassure those people, that they are going to be consulted, that there will not be logging until their interests have been heard, let alone addressed, and that they can be reassured that they are not going to lose out. Because they are being denied information, like this chamber is by Senator Troeth tonight.17:57:007768Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Earlier in my remarks on this amendment, I spoke about flexibility. That is the whole point of the framework that this Commonwealth legislation provides: that each RFA can then determine at the local level—which is what I thought Senator Brown would be most concerned about—the level of detail and the specific arrangements that are to be made for each community. He is extending this argument far beyond its logical extreme. I would point out to him that any arrangements in Quamby Bluff—which is obviously better known to him than it is to me—will be determined by the local community at the local community level.I am sorry if he does not accept that and that he wants the Commonwealth to put a totally inflexible framework around it, which is what he is advocating in this amendment which we have spent so long in debating. The fact is that each RFA will be taking into account local conditions at the local level. His local community in Quamby Bluff should be satisfied with that: that this government is making arrangements to do exactly that.Progress reported.Miscellaneous776810000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Before I call Senator Mason, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.17:59:007768Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP11—Just a couple of kilometres north of where we sit today lies the Australian War Memorial. Charles Bean, Australia's great military historian, conceived, inspired and helped to create this, perhaps our most original national institution. While designed to be complete in every detail, significantly Bean had no place in his memorial for attention to decorations and to awards. He would not even single out for special attention those awarded the Victoria Cross. They were well earned, he believed, but for each person so honoured another dozen might have been selected. It was so much a matter of chance, he insisted. So too is the opportunity to serve one's country in parliament, but I hope, as Sir Paul Hasluck once said, to `make the most of the chance of politics'.I thank the people of Queensland for giving me the opportunity and the very great privilege to serve them in Australia's national parliament. I thank my family for their love and their values. I thank my party: I hope to give you as much as you have given me. To all my friends: I cannot thank you enough for your support and your confidence, particularly during those times that test and then temper all of us.Looking around this chamber, one cannot fail to be awe-struck and perhaps even humbled by the atmosphere, the surroundings and most of all the memory of the great senators this nation has produced. I am very conscious of the distinguished Queensland lineage of my Senate seat. Dame Annabelle Rankin, the nation's first female federal minister, was succeeded by Neville Bonner, the first Aboriginal in federal parliament and later Australian of the Year. He in turn was succeeded by David MacGibbon, one of the Senate's great authorities on defence and the first to realise the futility of Australia's two-airline policy. I salute them and acknowledge that, in very different ways, their dreams and their ideas for our country have become our challenges and our guideposts for the future.We have all experienced defining moments in our political lives. For me, it came at the end of a half-hour motorbike ride from the centre of Phnom Penh. I remember stopping in the countryside amidst Cambodia's killing fields and contemplating the righteous madness that in the space of just three years extinguished over two million lives in an insane attempt to create an egalitarian utopia. A deep scepticism of collectivist ideology was capped by a pyramid of white skulls.Our century has seen politics emerge as the greatest force for moving people and for moving nations. The collectivist ethos that governments can perfect man is the greatest lie our time has known. In its name we have seen Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot commit countless atrocities. As the distinguished British historian Paul Johnson writes:The experience of our century shows emphatically that Utopianism is never far from gangsterism.We have learnt that `the destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well intentioned, almost limitless'. We now know that the good life stems much more from individuals caring about their community than from the state caring about its individuals.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Yet all the horror, all the tragedy and the deprivation of the last half century was widely known at the time. That it was ignored, whitewashed, romanticised or excused is one of the greatest moral failures of 20th century political life. When I was at school and at university, the world was seemingly in love with those who rebelled, who claimed that capitalism was immoral and that socialism was the future, who questioned everything except their own dogma. My lecturers spoke of the `moral equivalence' of Australia and the Soviet bloc. Totalitarianism, I was told, was simply an aspect of cultural diversity. Criticism and derision were seemingly reserved only for our Western society and its values.The young men and women who were patriotic, who believed in individual responsibility, trust, encouraging excellence, pride in our history and tradition and the importance of families and liberal democratic institutions, were thought somehow not to be on the future's wavelength. There were many people like me at universities and in the world at large who were taught that we should feel ashamed of ourselves, our attitudes and our country's achievements—ashamed of the Australian way. This, sadly, was the political education of so many of my generation at the hands of a perennially indignant elite. At no time in the history of humanity have so many well-meaning and well-educated individuals so misjudged the major issues of the day. With a legacy of appalling judgment, it is hardly surprising that historical amnesia has set in. Very few have the courage to own up to the moral responsibility for their past allegiances and past mistakes. Today we see so many others caught in the shadows who still are unable to understand that it is not possible to have praise without blame, law without guilt, reward without responsibility and a free society without moral institutions.The landscape of the 20th century—our century—is littered with the wrecks of social, moral, economic and political experiments. Australia, while luckier than most, was also affected by the schemes of progressive social engineers—often well-meaning but too often misguided. Nowhere, perhaps, is this failure more evident and more painful than in the area of Aboriginal affairs.Reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is a great test for our parliament and for our nation. As someone passionate about our country's future, I am very conscious of my obligation to future generations to ensure that the nation they inherit from us is truly united. Nothing from recent years will so test the limits of our moral imagination.There will never be a common understanding if the conversation is merely black elites talking to white elites. That is the conversation of the expedient and the fashionable. All Australians seek reconciliation that unites their country around a common future—not a mediated settlement born of guilt and anguish but rather one born of mutual respect and mutual understanding. It is only then that we can fully experience, as the Draft Declaration for Reconciliation so beautifully says, `the gift of one another's presence'. This is a project in nation building too important to be left simply to political leadership and at the mercy of an uncertain political process. Ordinary Australians, black and white, must own reconciliation, not the politicians and not the bureaucrats.I welcome the idea of a landmark statement from this parliament that reflects national aspirations for reconciliation. But we must go further. Reconciliation has to change beliefs and relationships. A mediated document, however artfully drafted, is but a first step. For ordinary Australians, reconciliation is a matter of the heart. As we pursue this great project we should be mindful not to let the burden of reconciliation fall solely on rural Australians while we in the cities take all the benefits, including the moral satisfaction and self-congratulation. To pander to fashion or expediency will be to betray all Australians.The recent debate about the need to change the role and the nature of welfare is vital to the future of all Australians and particularly of indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians need the same things that everyone else does: access to good health care, education, jobs and, most importantly, hope for the future. We all recognise that, ultimately, the only way to lift many indigenous people out of the cycle of welfare dependence is to increase their economic independence. The government's job may be to provide assistance but only where it is matched by responsibility for achieving certain outcomes. Perhaps nowhere in Australian social and economic life is the government's ethic of mutual obligation so important, so uplifting and so in conformity with the right of indigenous Australians to take responsibility for their own lives.Success stories are already springing up on Cape York in my state where communities are slowly and often painfully teaching themselves about the value of responsibility, the benefits of enterprise and the liberating spirit of selfsufficiency. They need our help as they turn despairing and troubled settlements into vibrant and healthy communities. Isolating Aboriginal people and showering them with money is the failed old remedy. Helping them to rediscover pride and dignity, a hand up and not a handout, is the true reconciliation.No-one is better placed than our side of politics to take this debate forward. We are more interested in achieving results, not because they are trendy or fashionable or politically correct but because they are fair, just and moral. We recognise individual responsibility as a core belief. We have always believed that individuals are much better placed than governments to make decisions about their own lives. For too long, governments have taken that right away from the first Australians. Here, more than anywhere, our government should provide the incentives by which people are empowered and encouraged to look after their own wellbeing.I readily acknowledge that, increasingly, my Labor colleagues recognise the importance of fundamental change in Aboriginal policy. I am optimistic that the next few years will see as fundamental an acceptance of this shift in consensus on Aboriginal affairs and welfare as we have witnessed over the last 20 years in economics.My generation has never known economic security. And for today's young people the challenges are even greater. When I was growing up, I thought I was competing for jobs with other students from my university—and perhaps a few from Sydney. The students I taught at university are increasingly not only competing with each other or those from nearby towns or cities but also with the children of Osaka, Berlin, and Singapore—and, perhaps soon, Moscow, Hanoi and Budapest.Today's young people, the young people I taught at university, are more sober, observant and conservative than those who taught me. They also have fewer places to hide. No longer will a burgeoning public service and large corporations afford opportunities for security. Today's young people will have to make their way through their own entrepreneurial skills. It will be the most street-smart and astute generation since the 1930s. Yet, unlike their grandparents, young Australians today are much more confident of their place in the sun. No longer burdened by self-doubt nor limited by narrow horizons, they have taught me that there is no limit to what Australia can achieve. They love Australia not only for what it is but also for what it can be. While many of their self-proclaimed spokespeople remain forever frozen in the time of the protest movement and free love, my young students have moved on to embrace the challenges of the future. They are much more interested in realising work than in reliving Woodstock.I am proud to be part of a government that has had the courage to take some tough decisions today so that young Australians might have more opportunities tomorrow. Success is not a birthright, but it is the duty of those elected to this place to ensure that hope remains a birthright. Australia's economic performance is one of the strongest in the developed world. Low interest rates, low inflation, low industrial disputation, high jobs growth, high levels of investment and increasingly high productivity are a great foundation stone for our future. Indeed, it is a great national achievement—perhaps even better than retaining the Ashes or beating the All Blacks!My state of Queensland is at the forefront of this national achievement. It is a great example of the Liberal vision for this country. The creative and bold policies of the Howard government will ensure that shortly after the turn of the century Queensland is not only still Australia's best and most prosperous state but also a leading regional economy in its own right and trading globally in all its many and growing areas of excellence and expertise. In facing the Asia-Pacific, Queensland faces Australia's future. The Pacific Rim, its opportunities, its challenges and its rewards will all be Queensland's before they are anyone else's. Queenslanders will ride point for Australia's destiny. Our Prime Minister has recently said that there are fewer limitations now on what Australia can achieve than at any time in the 25 years that he has spent in public life. I know that he is right. I for one would not trade my place for that of any other generation in our nation's history.Madam President, the testimony of this century is not mute: it proclaims certain truths in a strong and clear voice. A society not based on individual liberty, democracy and the rule of law invites tyranny. An economic system not based on free market, private initiative and enterprise ends in ruin. A community not respecting its traditions and its history, and not celebrating and preserving its institutions, degenerates into chaos. These ideas of liberal democracy blossomed in the world of the nineteenth century and they were almost buried in the twentieth. But throughout all the tyranny, the zealotry, the madness, the social experiments and the despair, conservatives argued harder than anyone else the case for political and economic freedom. And we were right. Now, a hundred years later, liberal democratic values are again ascendant and our hopes are undiminished. As we wrote the last words of the 19th century, so we will write the first words of the new century.As we celebrate the victories of the past and contemplate the challenges of the future at the dawn of the third millennium, I am very grateful for being given the opportunity to be a member of the Australian Senate. I count it as the greatest privilege that I am now able to express my love for our country not only through words but also through deeds. In less than 18 months we will be marking the centenary of Federation. For now, we are the authors of the next chapter in our nation's history. It has been said that it is only for God and for angels to be onlookers in life. The rest of us must participate in our communities, be involved and engaged and seek to make a difference. With God's help, I hope I can do just that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Before I call Senator Ridgeway, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.18:22:007771Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD01—I thank you, Madam President. It is a delight to stand up for the first time and not have to preface anything by saying that this is not my first speech. On this occasion I can say it is my first speech. I think it is appropriate to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land, the Ngunnawal people, and their special relationship with this place. I also take the opportunity to thank the Ngunnawal people and most particularly Matilda House and the elders for their blessings and welcome ceremony some weeks ago. It is my sincere hope that this becomes a regular feature of protocol for all Australians in our promise to achieve national reconciliation.It is also appropriate on this occasion to acknowledge the elders of my people, the Gumbayynggir, and on their behalf reciprocate their blessings to the Ngunnawal people. On this special occasion, I make my presence known as an Aborigine and to this chamber I say, perhaps for the first time: Nyandi baaliga Jaingatti. Nyandi mimiga Gumbayynggir. Nya jawgar yaam Gumbayynggir. Translated, it means: My father is Dhunghutti. My mother is Gumbayynggir. And, therefore, I am Gumbayynggir.Many people come to this place not as politicians but as farmers, as miners, as teachers and so on. I come to this place as a Gumbayynggir Goori but also as a reconciliationist. Every one of us arrives with our own interests and every one of us departs with a whole set of new interests, and on this occasion nothing should be different.I have been given a unique opportunity where the people of New South Wales have placed a political trust and confidence in my ability to deliver. However, I do not wish to disguise the intense focus which I feel on this occasion because indigenous eyes are upon me.I have known for some time that the challenge in being elected would arise in being Aboriginal and being Australian. I am not here for popular interest but for the interests of my country and to further the interests of indigenous Australians. So in that regard I must show leadership that contains the sentiment of impartial leadership that has no contradiction by combining the attributes of being both Aboriginal and Australian.To begin, let me state that the indigenous grievance is deeper than mere questions of party consideration. I want to first touch upon the matter of the preamble and my apparent discord with other indigenous leaders. It must be stated from the outset that Patrick Dodson is truly the father of reconciliation, but I am not Patrick nor am I Gatjil Djerrkura. If I could have that same time over again, I would probably do the same because I am simply me. I want to strongly impress upon this gathering that there exists no discord but everlasting respect where every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle but a different expression of the same intent. I believe that in the spirit of reconciliation there is goodwill to achieve the same thing.Reconciliation is perceived as a simple and easy thing. On the contrary, it is difficult because it challenges the things about this nation which prevented our proper recognition and being. If reconciliation is to challenge, then it must remove the obstacles of exclusion and provide the very vehicle by which we achieve proper recognition and national social cohesion.It is unquestionable that the wheels of reconciliation have stalled, but that ought not prevent the breaking of the wedge to allow those wheels to freely turn. Whilst others may not agree on wording, there should be no confusion of any intent. We must get the wheels of reconciliation turning again. We must bulldoze every obstacle to the inclusion of Australia's indigenous people in national life. The preamble decision was not an act of arrogance but an act of national interest. It sought to remove the biggest obstacle to exclusion—our recognition in the national Constitution—but most importantly it needed to be done to provide the means by which reconciliation can now proceed.The biggest obstacle to reconciliation is fear, and every reconciliationist has a higher responsibility to remove white fear in the interests of achieving permanent reconciliation. I see at this moment an entire nation grappling with all the oppressions of Australia's indigenous peoples. I see a nation crippled by racial resentment, disabled in its capacity to do good and prevented in courage to stop further wrongs from being done.There can be no question that any recognition deferred in the preamble could only enhance the price of purchasing future reconciliation. Hence my conviction that the inevitable product of such a plan would, in time, outweigh any perceived losses. The preamble does not diminish reconciliation but enhances it, and it is now our responsibility to build on that step by establishing a proper relationship between the preamble, other Australians and the broader process of reconciliation.In two centuries, it is true to speak of colonies and a nation as being less than half-perfect in its dealings with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. It is also true that, in return, Australia's indigenous peoples have reciprocated only half an affection. As a nation, we were committed without our consent to another man's cause for assimilation, a cause that reason could not defend. There is no question of a past relationship that is of both goodwill and bad intentions, but we should not be so guarded in our past memories that they prevent us from straddling the divide of achieving a consenting reconciliation.There is some truth in the sentiment that, in a 200-year struggle, the past has nothing to apologise for. It is argued by some that the decision made for my people was one of goodness, not of persecution; of assimilation, not of genocide; and in honesty, for their own good. As my colleagues and friends would attest, we are reviled for our protests and branded un-Australian when we take our case abroad. Our complaint is not so much about our condition or that we have no recognition like our brothers and sisters in other places. Our complaint is that we have no recognition from the other people in this country.Mabo should never have been a cause for outrage at indigenous success. It was simply the victory of belated justice over others' discontent, and it should have given us the opportunity for talk on the higher ideals of justice rather than on the mere question of property.The errors of the past are not there to imply guilt, but they are instructions of the things we must avoid repeating in the future. No-one should suggest that what I contemplate is the domination of one or the other—it is the struggle for recognition of rights and equality of opportunity. My commitment to my country is equalled by my commitment to reconciliation. It is a commitment which does not exist in blindness to the nation's faults, in deafness to the nation's racial discord or in the perpetuation of legal wrongs.In reconciliation no new idea is contemplated within the law, and if law were our guarantee the idea of progress could not be right. For the law governs progress, it does not fixate; it provides genuineness in its capacity to embrace every illegality of reconciliation. This is not a difficult idea, just an idea made difficult by men with false ideals.Our laws have created a tragedy among many of my people, and the beauty and splendour of this country conceal the legacies of the policies and the symptoms of rottenness, decay and idleness. I too hear talk of reciprocity, but it would be wrong to suggest that the moral evil of our condition has its origin with ourselves. This is wrong, and it fails to understand the cause of idleness. Indigenous Australians are not responsible for failing government policy, nor is there a conspiracy in the bush to be sick, unemployed or in gaol. These are the legacies of the shameful past that continues to manifest itself in the present. So our focus must be on the evil of that idleness, and not on the victims of indiscriminate laws. The legitimate source of idleness and the consequences of its miseries rest within the laws of this country.I speak first of an honest claim to the right to fish by Torres Strait Islanders and the story of Mr Benjamin `Ali' Nona, of the Mabo-made-famous island of Mer. The Torres Strait Treaty recognises and protects the traditional fishing rights and the way of life of Islanders. It does this in a way which also accommodates commercial fishing and a gentlemen's understanding that allows no commercial fishing within a 10-mile zone of each of the islands. In May of last year while turtle hunting, `Ali' and his friends sighted dinghies nearby containing commercial fishermen, presumed to be within the off-limits area. The Islanders approached the fishermen and in strong terms informed them to leave the area. `Ali' apparently seized the commercial catch by pointing a crayfish spear at the fishermen, and from there `Ali' and his two colleagues were served with indictments alleging theft of fish with violence—something almost equivalent to armed robbery.That particular case was heard, and the judge noted that similar incidents had happened previously and gone unchecked by the Commonwealth government, the Queensland government and the joint management authority that was established to implement that very treaty. His Honour made the point that the authority as the representative of the Crown was duty-bound to protect the fishing rights and the way of life of the Torres Strait Islanders. What is noteworthy in this case is the existence of a treaty not applied elsewhere in the country, operating on the principle of coexistence but allowing for Islander commercial activity.The judge was right in his decision, but the real victims of the law were the Islanders and the commercial fishermen, one because they held a real expectation that government would honour the treaty, and the others because of the failings of government to enforce the meaning of the treaty so that they understood what they could do. Despite the judge's finding, this matter has not ended, and it is highly likely that the Queensland government will press for further criminal charges to be laid against `Ali' and his other friends. Sometimes governments inspire contempt by their stupidity. If the Queensland government pursues this matter, it has no right to complain of grievances it does not suffer nor to use this case to promote self-interest rather than to highlight its own failings.So none of us is justified on any grounds in supporting the idleness which I am prepared to fight. None of us is justified in supporting the laws and the practices which encourage this idleness. None of us is justified in supporting a false view of black Australians which creates that idleness. Black Australians do not labour under an incapacity to become Australian but under an incapacity of other Australians to recognise black capacity and worth. If we are to find a way forward, we must first recognise that Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders are more aware of the needs and desires of their communities than governments, and they should have primary responsibility for meeting those needs.It is also fundamentally important that the federal government move away from the surrogate role which undermines the achievement of self-sufficiency. The economies of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders are extremely depressed, with unemployment rates amongst the highest in the country. The development of local and regional economies therefore must become the No. 1 priority of this government, which will lead to jobs and the generation of revenue for community services.Whilst there has been limited improvement in the health of communities, there is a direct correlation between poor health and the lack of a job. For this reason alone, the govern ment must immediately address the health crisis in communities across the country. The government must also develop a National Framework of Services and Self-sufficiency that provides the means by which rights arising under native title can be recognised and local and regional economies can be invigorated. It is vitally important to the concept of self-sufficiency that, in time, communities must reduce their dependence on government funds in exchange for increased economic and political rights.In essence, communities must be given the tools to develop an economic base, to satisfy native title demands, to maintain cultural heritage and to promote economic self-sufficiency. It is unquestionable that indigenous people have had limited opportunities to invest in their own economies, because often there has been no established resource base for community investment and development. The creation of a resource base must arise from a partnership between Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, the business sector and the government. Only through that process can there be established a proper economy that provides benefits to the broader community as well as to indigenous peoples.I want to move very quickly to another issue of concern to me: the issue of ATSIC itself. This government must respect a strong, national indigenous voice through the evolution of ATSIC. It must renew its commitment to the idea of communities having the capacity to determine for themselves. It must also establish a framework in which proper consideration can be given to traditional and customary rights and, most importantly, a renewal of a commitment to reconciliation. I say to Gatjil Djerkurra that I support with great confidence the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, and I use this occasion to call on all governments to coordinate their well-intended work with the commission. The commission has continuously shown that it is prepared to work with those who are prepared to work in partnership with it. I am but one indigenous voice among many, but I believe that I am obliged to promote those other voices and to move this government to constructive concord with Australia's indigenous peoples. Everyone's effort is required if we are to achieve the nation's ambition of reconciliation.Finally, I want to visit the matter of the Bringing them home report and the recommendation that the past be acknowledged and there be a gesture of atonement. I support the idea of an apology being given and I take great pride in knowing that every parliament in this nation has, in its own words, acknowledged the past and expressed sorrow about the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families. These responses have been mixed, but their expression of acknowledgment, sorrow, regret, apology and reconciliation has been clear. By far the worst came from Queensland and by far the best came from Tasmania. If the sunshine state and the Apple Isle present the best litmus test for resolution of this issue, then I encourage this government to follow its most conservative Apple Isle colleagues by dealing with this matter with honesty, sincerity and decency.In moving forward we must place an immeasurable space between what was and what could be, through the key factors to achieving reconciliation, namely: an acknowledgment of past practices and their consequences, an apology, and a renewed commitment to reconciliation. This has not been an easy issue to deal with, and over the past few days I have agonised over the heartfelt views of members of the stolen generation and their families for the consequences of an unjust past.I am not a stolen generation member, but I am mindful of my duty as a human being to acknowledge their past, their hurt and the consequences of poor decisions which left scars in families and an indelible stain on the national character. These are the results of misguided past policy, but I am now mindful of a moral duty to acknowledge those miseries, to call upon conscience to put these matters to rest and, through reconciliation, to render justice for all. I now put on notice my intention to call upon this government to act above party consideration and to raise the country's pre-eminence in dealing with a matter of national interest by moral obligation. I call upon this government to renew its commitment to reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, to reaffirm its commitment to addressing the economic and social disadvantage of indigenous Australians, and to express its deep and sincere regret for the hurt and the trauma that has been suffered by so many indigenous peoples.In closing, I want to acknowledge the presence of so many people in the gallery. It is with their support that I am here today. To my Gumbayynggir Elders, I pay respect. I acknowledge my indigenous brothers and sisters for their journey to this place—Les, Geoff, Charles, Lowitja, Parry, and so on. I acknowledge members of reconciliation groups and supporters of indigenous struggle. Mrs O'Brien, I thank you for your particular effort. I acknowledge my friends, who are both black and white—some of them are farmers, some of them are lawyers, others are accountants. All of them good people. I particularly mention Anne Martin for her special efforts, my brother Stephen, who is unable to be here today, and my cousins and my other brother Lee. Finally I want to make particular mention of my mother, Mrs Colleen Ridgeway, my two sons, Jay and Liam Ridgeway, and my partner in life, Stephanie Sims. Thank you for your support, patience and enduring friendship. I now put this before the Senate.Documents7775777518:47:007775Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This review was prepared by Peter Ford, First Assistant Secretary, Information and Security Law Division, Attorney-General's Department. It deals with the next stage in the issue of interception. Interception is an issue that this parliament has been dealing with for 20 years now and it has, over that time, sought to establish the proper balance between what is a legitimate intrusion into people's privacy in the attempt to gather intelligence for policing purposes against the right that we all have to carry out our lives in privacy.It is a big issue, and it is an issue that we ought to take on board. The issue of interception is founded principally on the precept that people's telephones should be kept free of tapping and that people should be able to carry on conversation, to be intimate and to discuss issues without other people intruding. But, because of the law enforcement obligations that we have, we as a parliament have allowed certain organisations to intercept telephones, mainly for the purposes of gathering intelligence for the proper putting down of criminal acts or possible criminal acts.This report follows a number of other reports and it makes some suggestions about how this parliament should allow further telephone tapping or, I suppose, further communication tapping and what protections ought to be accorded to people who want to use the phones. A number of recommendations are made. Recommendation 9 says:The issue of resourcing the agency coordinator function should be considered following the conclusion of the review being conducted under the Telecommunications Act.That deals with the resources that should be available. The last recommendation, recommendation 12, says:Section 55(2) of the Interception Act should be amended to remove the need for Australian Federal Police involvement in interceptions at a PABX switch.That is something that I would be against. The idea of having the Australian Federal Police there is to indicate that this is a Commonwealth activity, that this is a Commonwealth power that has been exercised—the power to intercept a communication—and that the Commonwealth should have responsibility to some extent for doing that, and that is right. If we are going to allow an intrusion into people's privacy then we as a federal body ought to take responsibility, which we do through the Australian Federal Police. That was a very big principle when a lot of this legislation was developed, and it should be a principle that remains.Question resolved in the affirmative.777618:52:007776Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This is a very vital report because it deals with the entitlements of pregnant women in the workplace. I see Senator Ferris looking at me, and I should perhaps declare an interest. I have a daughter-in-law who is pregnant and is, I hope, about to return—she has been overseas—to the North Melbourne Community Legal Centre to work. Emma Hunt is her name, and she will do a splendid job giving legal advice in that office. I would say that she is amongst the best and she should be allowed to give legal advice, as she is more than capable of doing. The fact that she is pregnant should not of itself be a bar to her carrying out her work. If she were unable to do her work because of sickness or for some other reason which genuinely impinged upon her ability to do her work, there would be no argument, but the simple fact that she is pregnant should not disadvantage her.This report, which was prepared by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, goes into this subject in some depth. For example, paragraph 8.88 says:HREOC believes that there is a key role for unions in making sure that accurate information about rights, entitlements and responsibilities of pregnant and potentially pregnant workers is provided to employees. Unions can also bring their corporate history and experience to bear in identifying issues that have particular impact on pregnant and potentially pregnant workers.It goes into lots of other issues; and, as I flip through the report, I see the headings `Recruitment of pregnant women', `Direct discrimination in Western Australia', `Indirect discrimination in New South Wales', and `Potential pregnancy discrimination in state and territory legislation'. The report comprehensively deals with this very vital topic.Any fair society should provide the opportunity to work to anybody who is capable of working. It should not deny anybody the opportunity because of their colour, their religion, their race, or because they are pregnant. There are all sorts of issues that should be left aside; merit alone should be the test. At the same time, we should have regard to the situation that a person is in and make it possible for people to carry out the work that they are capable of.Any society that we would like to belong to would pay regard to the situation a person is in, and, if a person is pregnant, that should be taken into account. That is not to say that she should be allowed to do everything, no matter what, in the workplace but legitimate adjustments should be made to accommodate her. I think this is a significant report, a seminal report, and I hope that good things flow from it.18:57:007777Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise tonight to speak for just a few minutes on this report. From memory, it was about a year ago today that this report was commissioned by the Attorney-General. I want to put on record tonight that the referral of this matter to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was, I believe, welcomed by all parties in this Senate. I also want to acknowledge that the government saw that there was a need to do something about this matter and to inquire into it.It is quite a comprehensive report. In the short time it has been out today, I have not had a chance to read all of it, but I am more than familiar with some of the issues in relation to pregnancy in the workplace. These issues basically stem from the problem that employers these days, as much as trade unions or even employees, still do not understand what the real issues are in relation to women in the workplace—particularly women who are pregnant. There are many examples in the report where women have been discriminated against due to a lack of action and knowledge on the employer's part. Sometimes—and I am sorry to say this, in this day and age—it is probably due to ignorance on the part of employers, although some employers quite clearly deliberately and wilfully seek to discriminate against women in the workplace, and some women are not empowered and do not know what they can do about it.There are stories about women not being employed in a job because they are pregnant, women not being hired to fulfil certain roles within a workplace in case they get pregnant and women who become pregnant but are too frightened to tell their boss about it until it is fairly obvious they are carrying a child for fear of retribution. Women can be quite sick in the first trimester of their pregnancy and may need to use their sick leave. This is one area where our industrial awards do not recognise or acknowledge that there can be a difference between the sick leave men and women take. A woman may take sick leave when she is pregnant and a man would never access his sick leave for those sorts of reasons. At the launch of this document today we heard of a woman who had used up all her sick leave during a very difficult pregnancy to be told that she had one day left and was facing dismissal.We are nearly into the next millennium, but this report has highlighted that discrimination in the workplace on the basis of pregnancy is well and truly out there and there are many concerns that women have brought to bear through these submissions. It is interesting to note, as Susan Halliday mentioned today, that the number of cases brought before commissions in the federal and state and territory jurisdictions has increased. That is a good thing. These kinds of documents are around for the public record. It is important that we now advertise the fact that there has been an inquiry into this and a report. It empowers both employers and employees to know the issues involved and get on top of them. The report is entitled, `It's a right and not a privilege to work while pregnant'. That is quite a good and catchy title.At the launch today, Jocelyn Newman actually commented on the fact that one of her colleagues, Jackie Kelly, is pregnant, which we know. My Labor colleagues Senator Jacinta Collins and Anna Burke, from the House of Representatives, are pregnant. There is one thing in relation to those three women in federal parliament worth pointing out—and I do not know whether this document picks it up—and that is that if you are a member of parliament or a senator and you feel that you have been discriminated against because you are pregnant, you are unable to take action under this act. In my discussions with Susan Halliday during this inquiry I raised this with her. I look forward to seeing whether this report has picked this up. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment777810000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! Consideration of government documents having concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.777819:02:007778Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—The Meander River system in Tasmania's north feeds a large number of rural properties, the towns of Deloraine and Hadspen, the Trevally Dam and power station and the beautiful Cataract Gorge and ultimately exhausts into the Tamar River saltwater estuary near Launceston. For many years, local residents in the Meander Dam Action Group have vocally championed the potential of this river for water storage purposes. The building of the 43,000-megalitre Warners Creek Dam, upstream from Deloraine, has been mooted many times over the past two decades. It is now time to push harder than ever before to see this wonderful vision taken through to reality.The area has a history of drought with resulting productivity losses for farmers and the ramifications multiplied in opportunity cost to the rest of the community. The state of Tasmania has a high level of rainfall, but in many areas the distribution is outside the main production season, and this must be corrected. The voluminous flow of fresh water out to the sea over the winter months must be stemmed for ultimate use during the growing and harvesting months of spring and summer.The benefits of the Warners Creek Dam to the whole community and to the state, I believe, are absolutely enormous. They include: the improved environmental flow of the Meander River; the elimination of discolouration and improved health of the river; the ability of the agricultural industry to feed off the dam; and a boost to employment during the construction stage and from the resulting higher productivity as a result of irrigation. There is also increased tourism potential, the opportunity for environmental friendly electricity generation, recreation and fishing opportunities and a clean and pure town water supply for Deloraine, Hadspen and sections of the city of Launceston where growing areas ensure a bigger demand for water.Water storage is a critical issue for the development of Tasmania's rural industries and in turn the creation of wealth and jobs. Without increasing the availability to farmers of access to reliable water storage, our rural industry will continue to be at the mercy of droughts and dry spells, leading to fluctuating production, hardship for the farmers and the community and a loss of confidence.The 1998 year is a case in point where the effects of El Nino were particularly evident. Significantly reducing major fluctuations in production of our rural products is an important consideration for both domestic and export markets. Reliability—the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately—is the key to obtaining and maintaining all markets for our excellent quality produce. Tasmania relies significantly on its rural production and resultant downstream processing to create both wealth and employment. Stability of and improvement in the area's water supply during the summer months is one of the most important steps the community can take in ensuring real long-term economic and employment gains.I refer to a report undertaken two years ago by the University of Tasmania which estimated that the Deloraine area produced 14 to 15 per cent of the state's overall milk production and 15 per cent of the state's agricultural production. If, as a result of a strategic water storage policy, the Deloraine area was to increase agricultural production by 20 per cent, then the rural industry as a whole could create 480 full-time and part-time jobs statewide and community wages could rise by $2.25 million statewide.The potential for new, high value agricultural production is perhaps the dam's most critical short-term immediate gain. The environmental effects are just as important. Flood ing during the heavy rainfall months of winter means that land is frequently out of use for seeding and planting. Therefore, the land suffers reduced utilisation in the flood zone. Physical damage occurs and soil is lost through erosion. The cost of maintaining fences is high and stock losses and stock stress frequently occur. Recreation facilities are also flooded, homes are spoiled from invading water and businesses suffer reduced takings because they are inaccessible.Major works have been undertaken to prepare the site for construction of the Warners Creek Dam. I have been there and seen that. Successive governments have promised funding. Unfortunately, none have delivered. With the input of approximately $14 million in funding, construction can begin and ultimately enrich the Deloraine region and Tasmania's reputation as a reliable, quality producer of agricultural products.Tasmania is also suffering an energy shortage. If we are to attract investment to our state, we must cater for increased energy demand. With construction of the Warners Creek Dam, I believe the opportunity is there. It is a valuable add-on opportunity. The electricity industry in Tasmania is run and managed by the wholly state-owned Hydro Electricity Commission through its various agencies. The significant difference in Tasmania's electricity industry from those of the mainland states is that 99 per cent of Tasmania's electricity is provided by hydro-electric power, a renewable energy resource.The Commonwealth has provided a financial incentive for the development of commercial renewable electricity generating capacity. As the greenhouse gas issue becomes globally important, the construction of the Warners Creek Dam would be a perfect place to commence increasing Tasmania's energy capacity. Perhaps the `no dams' campaign has run its course. I certainly hope so. Maybe it is now appropriate, for a host of good reasons, for Tasmania to build a number of mini-hydro stations, adding quite a few to the existing network.In order to survive, Tasmania must shed its so-called `no development' or `green disease'. To move the state from being an economic backwater, projects such as the Warners Creek Dam, which holds so much promise, must be constructed. I urge the Tasmanian government and all others to do all that is possible to financially assist in this project.As a senator from Tasmania—just as you are, Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry—I advise the Senate that I am actively promoting the dam's potential to my federal colleagues so that ultimately, with local, state and federal government cooperation, the Warners Creek Dam in the north of Tasmania can eventually become a reality.777919:11:007779Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I want to speak tonight about the local government elections in New South Wales to be held on 11 September and about the preferences that the Liberal Party in New South Wales—those geniuses who run the coalition—have allocated in some of the crucial local government areas. In New South Wales, I thought the deal between the two parties was that we would put One Nation candidates last in the allocation of preferences—I also thought we had this deal between the two parties nationally. However, in two crucial areas of New South Wales—in Sutherland and Dubbo—the coalition have sought to put One Nation before Labor and Independent candidates.In the Shire of Sutherland, where the Liberal Party control the council, they have determined in one of the crucial wards that they will put One Nation before both the Labor team and the Community Watch team. The Liberal Party in Sutherland knows that, once the electors get a chance to get a hold of them on 11 September, they will trounce them with Labor and Community Watch teams. But what has happened is that in one of these crucial wards, as I have said, the allocation of preferences has gone to One Nation. When the local Labor Party MPs and the Unity Party MP, Dr Peter Wong in the New South Wales upper house, have called Kerry Chikarovski, the state Liberal leader, and Remo Nogarotto, the state Liberal Party director, to disendorse those Liberal candidates because of the actions they have taken in the Sutherland Shire council elections, they have said that they cannot do it.The coalition on the other side of the Senate must be very proud of their actions before the last state election, replacing one leader five minutes before an election, and they got trounced—Senator Ferris interjecting—84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—I think you have 20 out of the 93 seats in the New South Wales parliament at the moment. By the time the next election comes around, you might have less.When Mrs Chikarovski and Remo Nogarotto were called upon to take the action to disendorse the Liberal candidates in Sutherland, they refused. They said they could not do it. I do not believe they could not do it and I do not believe that they did not act because, as I said, I understood that we had some sort of implicit agreement that both parties would put One Nation last. But because of political expediency in Sutherland Shire Council, and to try to save its guts, the Liberal Party has done this sleazy deal. Both Unity, which is a party representing a lot of the various ethnic and community groups in New South Wales, and the Labor Party have called upon these two leaders of the Liberal Party to do something about it. They have refused.I think that is a bit of a problem because one of the people who is running in the Liberal Party as a candidate in the Sutherland election is a chap called Dean Gillespie. He is not only an active Young Liberal and so on but also a senior staffer for the opposition spokesman on education, Mr Stephen O'Doherty. I would have thought that anybody who could be pressured to take action in that regard would have been that person on the opposition's payroll. Yet gutlessness or ineffectiveness has meant that the Liberal Party has not acted in that area.I do not know whether people are aware of what One Nation stands for in local government elections. It appears from an article of 5 August in the Sydney Morning Herald that there was a barney between the national and state executives and Mrs Hanson about whether to run candidates in the local government elections in New South Wales. Eventually Mrs Hanson must have been overruled by the other two members of the triumvirate because they are running in a number of crucial areas in New South Wales. One of the things that their guru, Mr David Oldfield, has pledged to do—and he is now a member of the New South Wales upper house—when and if they get control or access to power in these local government areas is to, firstly, kill off the sorry books and, secondly, end multiculturalism at the local government level. The Liberal Party is going ahead and endorsing those actions by refusing to disendorse the Liberal candidates in the Sutherland election.In the council election of Dubbo, the former National Party minister and member for Dubbo, Mr Gerry Peacocke, is running as an Independent with a number of other similarly minded Independents. Once again, this former coalition leader is directing his preferences to One Nation, saying that there is no connection with any other actions by the coalition. I do not believe it. I believe these actions are isolated, but they are connected. We saw yesterday in the Senate the actions of the coalition when we were called upon to vote on the vacancy on the competition committee. We know from the results that 40 people voted for Senator Brown and 27 people voted for Senator Harris. We in the Labor Party caucused and said that we were going to vote for Senator Brown because of what One Nation stands for. Where did those other 27 votes come from? They came from the Liberal side and the National Party side. They are supporting One Nation.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What does Senator Brown stand for?84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—I will repeat for you what One Nation stand for. They stand for killing off the sorry books and ending multiculturalism at the local government level. That is what they stand for; that is what they are running on. That is what your coalition partners, those geniuses in New South Wales, are supporting. What the coalition did yesterday by supporting Senator Harris was, once again, one of those connected yet isolated incidents where the coalition are implicitly starting to develop their relationship with One Nation. What I say to people who might be listening, and to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that, as a member of the Senate, I am very worried about this development. I thought we had this agreement between the two parties, but I have just mentioned three instances when it has broken down. Over the next period we will see the coalition cosy up more and more to One Nation. We will see its policies starting to develop the One Nation agenda. We know what the One Nation agenda is. It seeks to exploit people's fears and prejudices. It seeks to make scapegoats of Asians, Aborigines and migrants. My fear is that, by their actions in the last few days and by the gutlessness of the New South Wales coalition, we will see the breakdown of this agreement and that will lead to further division in this country rather than unity.778119:19:007781Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Tonight we heard two very eloquent first speeches by Senator Aden Ridgeway and Senator Brett Mason. I thought they both defined very eloquently the many challenges facing our indigenous communities. I would like to raise one of those challenges in particular. Indigenous family violence is a topic which is seldom discussed in the community, yet its effects on families are horrific. Over the parliamentary break, I travelled to Darwin and Tennant Creek to meet some of the very courageous men and women who are helping to lead the fight against destructive family violence in their own communities. Some communities describe it as `Kosovo in our own backyard'.At the outset I congratulate ATSIC on the decision they have made to allocate increased funding to this absolutely crucial area. It used to be said that domestic violence was a women's issue, and I never quite understood why. But now it is much more correctly defined as a family issue. There are various forms of indigenous family violence, including violence against the aged. Sadly, family violence is now spanning generations and, in some cases, children raised in this environment accept it as part of life.Recently at a roundtable I conducted in Port Augusta with indigenous women, I heard some quite horrific stories of family violence. Thank goodness indigenous communities themselves have decided that it is time to make fundamental change. The women that I met told me that it is the children who have sparked this change of direction. These women say that a healthy family and healthy children are fundamental to a strong cultural environment. I have heard the stories about the dreaded `thirsty Thursday' and the need for women and children to make themselves scarce to avoid the violence that can accompany payday. I visited communities that are now dry as a result of a decision made by the community itself, where a sign proudly proclaiming `This is an alcohol-free zone' is attached to every fence along those streets.In Tennant Creek two very special women, Heather and Valda, proudly showed me how their night patrol ensures that children are returned to responsible adult supervision and that men and women who need help are taken to safe houses. Interestingly enough, since these two very brave women have been working on the patrol, the number of women needing emergency refuge care in the town of Tennant Creek has dropped significantly.I also saw the respect with which these two women are treated in the community by police and business leaders. There is no doubt that this valuable service, together with sensible alcohol practices, is resulting in a dramatic improvement in community violence around the town of Tennant Creek. The men and women I met have come to understand that, as they say, `one drunk in a house of 10 sober people can destroy an entire household'. This government has grabbed this difficult issue and is working with those communities to ensure that they are strengthened by safe drinking practices.Another enduring memory of the effectiveness of these programs comes from Darwin and a night patrol made up of a group of very special culturally sensitive men and women who know just how to handle some very tense and particularly volatile situations in that community. I found it quite unforgettable to see that, just behind the bright lights of the Darwin casino, there were men and women who very much appreciated and needed the safety offered by this night patrol taking them to a centre for a shower, a hot meal, clean clothes and a safe place to sleep.I was very privileged to travel with the night patrols in Tennant Creek and also in Darwin, and I would particularly like to thank those people who made those trips possible for me. Many of the issues that we talked about during those dark hours, driving around those streets, were discussed quite openly at a very important forum recently held in Brisbane to discuss indigenous family violence. It was convened by Senator Herron, and I was privileged to attend as an observer at his invitation. A range of community representatives from all over Australia shared suggestions on ways to tackle this very difficult issue. As one participant said so simply, `Every broken life diminishes the nation.' I was interested to learn that, for many communities, enhancing the role of grandmothers is one of the very important foundations on which to tackle this issue and that effective night patrols are also an answer to much of the family violence which previously dominated many of the more remote communities.So, instead of—as Senator Aden Ridgeway so eloquently put it tonight—just throwing money at this very sensitive issue, our government, through Minister John Herron in particular, has reset the priorities, and ATSIC has also recognised that this special problem needs special funding. It will be reducing its multimillion-dollar travel and public information budgets so that $1 million can be put aside this year to fund programs to tackle indigenous family violence.In fact, ATSIC could do well to take note of very successful programs that are now being developed in the Northern Territory by the Aboriginal Family Violence Strategy, with valuable input from a very special woman, Eileen Cummings. The program is entitled `Family Violence is not the Aboriginal Way'. This strategy approaches the issue in a wide variety of ways: in the schools, in the prisons and in the communities. It uses material pre pared by indigenous men and women to show that there is another, safer way.I pay tribute to all the quietly spoken and very courageous men and women who, in a practical and no nonsense way, are turning around what in many cases has been a generational family issue. As one speaker at the forum said to me, `Grog has been the black man's psychiatrist.' But now they are coming to realise that it does not have to be that way, and this government is here to help them. I commend these courageous men and women and the challenges they are taking on; I wish them every success.Senate adjourned at 7.27 p.m.Documents77827782The following government documents were tabled:Attorney-General's Department—Report—Telecommunications interception policy review, May 1999.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Sex Discrimination Commissioner—National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry—Report—Pregnant and productive: It's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant.Treaty—Bilateral —Text of proposed treaty action—Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement to extend the Application of Certain Provisions of Article 23 of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and Government of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, of 20 August 1980. [National interest analysis and regulation impact statement tabled on 11 August 1999 together with Protocol, done at Sydney on 2 August 1999, to amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, of 20 August 1980 ]The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Broadcasting Services Act—Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice No. 1 of 1994 (Amendment No. 2 of 1999).Currency Act— Currency Amendment Determination 1999 (No. 1). Currency Determination 1999 (No. 2). National Health Act—Guidelines under section 82ZRB, dated 16 August 1999.Public Service Act—Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1999/18-1999/20.Answers to Questions on Notice7784The following answers to questions were circulated:7784(Question No. 1154)11547784Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:With reference to the 18 recommendations presented to the Government by the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Task Force chaired by Mr Max Moore-Wilton:(1) Which recommendations, by number, were based in whole or in part on recommendations of the report prepared by the now retired Air Vice-Marshal (AVM) Alan Heggen.(2) For those based in whole or in part on recommendations of AVM Heggen: (a) what was the recommendation made by the report; and (b) what was the finding or findings of the report supporting the recommendation.7784Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15.(2) As indicated in paragraph 2 of the task force report, all of AVM Heggen's key recommendations have been incorporated into the recommendations of the task force, except in relation to extending REEFREP radar coverage in the Torres Strait. The reasons for not incorporating the REEFREP recommendation are set out in paragraph 26 of the task force report.7784(Question No. 1155)11557784Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:With reference to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit report no. 32 of 1997-98, The Management of Boat People:(1) Did the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Task Force consider the report.(2)Does recommendation no. 1 of this report state that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be signed between Coastwatch and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). (3) Is it the case that DIMA continues to oppose the negotiation of an MOU with Coastwatch.(4) Did the task force consider recommendation no. 1; if so: (a) why did the task force not recommend that DIMA follow the advice of ANAO; and (b) in what regard was ANAO mistaken in proposing an MOU as a means to improve the efficiency of surveillance operations against boats carrying illegal immigrants.7784Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised the following:(1) Yes.(2) Recommendation 1 states that an MOU should be developed between DIMA and Coastwatch incorporating a performance agreement setting out targets, indicators and respective responsibilities.(3) The task force proposed that the additional funding provided for enhanced aerial surveillance be covered by a service provider agreement between DIMA and Coastwatch. Service provider agreements currently being developed as a result of that proposal would serve a broadly similar purpose to the MOU proposed in the ANAO report.(4) The government believes the measures being adopted as a result of the work of the Coastal Surveillance Task Force, particularly the service provider agreements being developed between DIMA and Coastwatch, are consistent with the objectives underlying the recommendations of the ANAO report.7784(Question No. 1156)11567784Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:With reference to the Information Oversight Committee (IOC) to be established under recommendation 1 of the Coastal Surveillance Task Force:(1) What are the agencies to be represented on the IOC.(2) Is the focus of the IOC to be strategic or operational. (3) What role will the constituent agencies play in deciding the program of the IOC.(4) Which agency, or agencies, has the responsibility for: (a) determining the objectives of the IOC's intelligence program; (b) its annual work program; and (c) the evaluation of its performance.(5) Will processes be available to allow Coastwatch to direct the IOC's intelligence programs to support operations planned or under way.7785Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Office of National Assessments (chair); Australian Customs Service, including Coastwatch; Australian Federal Police; Department of Defence; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and relevant intelligence agencies.(2) The focus of the IOC will be strategic. Coastwatch will continue to manage operational intelligence.(3)—(5) ONA will have prime responsibility for, and will take a leadership role in, the operation of the IOC. Constituent agencies will contribute as appropriate. There will be a level of liaison between ONA and Coastwatch appropriate to the strategic focus of the IOC.7785(Question No. 1157)11577785Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:With reference to recommendation 6 of the 18 recommendations presented to the Government by the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Task Force:(1) (a) Will the $2 million in assistance, proposed for the control of potential illegal immigrants transiting Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, be a new appropriation or is it to be diverted from funds in assistance programs already approved; and (b) have the governments of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea been consulted on this recommendation; if so, what was their response.7785Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) New appropriation; (b) The Task Force Secretariat briefed representatives from the Embassy of Indonesia and the High Commission of Papua New Guinea on 30 June 1999 on the task force's recommendations. The representatives expressed their interest in liaising further with Australian officials.7785(Question No. 1165)11657785Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:With reference to recommendation 13 of the 18 recommendations presented to the Government by the Prime Minister's Coastal Surveillance Task Force:(1) For what reasons did the task force recommend that the position of Director General Coastwatch be filled by a seconded Australian Defence Force (ADF) officer.(2) What is to be the term of appointment of the officer seconded to the position.(3) What criteria have been developed to identify ADF officers suitable for the position.(4) What are to be the roles of additional ADF personnel seconded to Coastwatch.(5) Did the task force assess the effects of various levels of seconded ADF personnel on the functioning of the Australian Customs Service chain of command.7785Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) To help broaden the range of professional skills within Coastwatch and to improve coordination between Coastwatch and the Australian Defence Force.(2) The term of appointment is expected to be two years.(3) The criteria include strong personal leadership skills, strong interpersonal relations skills and extensive professional background in maritime operations and surveillance.(4)—(5) The need for additional ADF personnel to be seconded to Coastwatch and the roles of such personnel are to be examined by the Director-General Coastwatch.7785(Question No. 1166)11667785Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:Did the Coastal Surveillance Task Force assess the claims of the Department of Defence, as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 15 April 1999, that the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) will be of use in detecting boats which might be carrying illegal immigrants; if so: (a) did the task force determine the suitability of the presently planned search arcs of the JORN for meeting the requirements of recommendation 11; and (b) what recommendations did it make to the Department of Defence on this matter.7786Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) The task force found that the Department of Defence's Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) already provides some limited information. Although JORN is not optimised for surface vessels, when completed in late 2001 it will be able to make a contribution to better detection.(b) The task force was of the view that the expiry of the two major Coastwatch surveillance contracts in 2004 offers an opportunity for Coastwatch further to review the effectiveness of new technologies, including JORN. In deciding whether to renew the contracts, Coastwatch should carefully examine the capacity of emerging technologies to partly replace manned aerial surveillance and the contribution that could be made by the Department of Defence through mobile land-based radar operations.7786(Question No. 1167)11677786Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BolkusXE4SAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1999:(1) Did the Coastal Surveillance Task Force assess the requirements for liaison between Coastwatch and: (a) the Australian Fisheries Management Authority; (b) the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service; (c) the Australian Federal Police; (d) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; and (e) Environment Australia.(2) For each of the above agencies, what are the current liaison arrangements with Coastwatch.(3)What was the assessment of the task force as to the effectiveness of these arrangements.(4) What proportion of aerial surveillance hours and 1998-2000 Coastwatch appropriations are devoted to: (a) illegal immigration control; and (b) other Coastwatch functions.7786Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The primary focus of the Coastal Surveillance Task Force was on improving prevention of illegal boat arrivals. Liaison between Coastwatch and the agencies referred to was obviously an important element in the task force's considerations. The AFP Commissioner was a member of the task force.(2) Each of the above agencies participates in a monthly meeting of Coastwatch's Operations and Program Advisory Committee which reviews Coastwatch operations. Coastwatch planning and operational staff are in daily contact with client agencies in relation to surveillance and response activities across the range of client tasking.(3)Agencies generally were satisfied with their current liaison with Coastwatch and would not wish to see the level of liaison diminished.(4) Coastwatch flights are multi-tasked, with each flight seeking to detect activity that may suggest offences against a variety of Australian legislation including the Customs Act and the Migration Act. For that reason no differentiation has been made either in hours or appropriations between the various Coastwatch functions.7786(Question No. 1231)12317786O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice, 5 August 1999:(1) Has the Defence Force Directorate of Flying Safety (DFS) conducted an inquiry into an air safety incident between an Air Force P-3C Orion and a civilian aircraft that occurred during the search and rescue exercise to assist sailors in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart yacht race.(2) (a) When did the incident occur; (b) when was the incident reported to DFS; and (c) when did DFS complete its investigation.(3) (a) What were the findings of the DFS investigation into the above incident; and (b) what action resulted from the findings of the investigations.(4) Can a copy be provided of the DFS report of its investigation into the above incident.7786Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Directorate of Flying Safety and Australian Defence Force (DFS-ADF) and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) are jointly investigating an incident involving a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P-3C Orion and a civilian aircraft while both were engaged in the search for missing sailors and yachts participating in the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. DFS-ADF has prime carriage of the investigation with support from BASI. (2) (a) The incident occurred at approximately 0900 Eastern Daylight Saving Time on 28 December 1998.(b) The incident was reported to DFS-ADF by telephone and message on 4 January 1999.(c) The investigation is continuing. A joint DFS-ADF/BASI report will be released on completion of the investigation.(3) (a) Significant factors in the incident and recommendations for preventative action will be published in the joint DFS-ADF/BASI report.(b) The DFS-ADF/BASI report has not yet been completed.(4) A copy of the joint DFS-ADF/BASI report will be forwarded to Senator O'Brien when it is complete.