1999-08-263914SENATE778901999-08-26The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.778910001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:77891777M56Payne Sen MariseTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The petition of certain residents of Sydney draws the attention of the House to the fact that an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will greatly increase air, noise and water pollution causing an increase in health problems and compromising children's educational standards. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate not to pass any bill which would lead to the construction of a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek.Senator PayneM56Senator Payne(from 1,777 citizens)Petition received.Notices77897789Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee has not yet received answers to questions put to the Department of the Environment and Heritage during budget estimates held on 7 June 1999, and (ii) the closing date for receiving such answers was 16 July 1999 and that it is now more than 6 weeks past the date set by the committee; and (b) resolves that there be laid on the table, no later than immediately following question time on 31 August 1999, the answers to all outstanding questions on notice.Senator Cook to move, on 1 September 1999:That the Senate— (a) notes that the former Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand (The Hon. Mike Moore) will take up the position of Direc tor-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 26 August 1999; (b) acknowledges Mr Moore's excellent credentials for the post and his deep knowledge of Australia, its trade objectives and policy; (c) notes that: (i) Mr Moore is the first New Zealander to be Director-General of the WTO and to lead a United Nations agency or economic body, and (ii) the future of the WTO is of great importance to Australia; and (d) expresses its confidence that Mr Moore brings to the job the right combination of intelligence and tenacity to initiate a successful round of world trade negotiations and wishes him well over the next 3 years.09:32:007789Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, I shall move:That the following delegated legislation be disallowed:1. Airports (Protection of Airspace) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 113 and made under the Airports Act 1996 .2. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 97 and made under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 .3. Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 3) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 107 and made under Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 .4. Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 98 and made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 .5. Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports)(Decision IV/9) Regulations 1999 as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 102 and made under the Hazardous Waste (Regulation and Exports and Imports) Act 1989 .6. Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 6) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 81 and made under the Migration Act 1958 .7. Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No. 1) made under subregulation 5(1) of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991 .8. National Measurement Regulations 1999 as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 110 and made under the National Measurement Act 1960 .9. Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 101 and made under the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 .10. Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 112 and made under the Public Service Act 1922 .11. Telecommunications (Charges) Determination No. 1 of 1999, Amendment Determination No. 1 of 1999 made under section 53 of the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997 .[Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provisions apply: must be resolved within 15 sitting days after today or the above instruments will be deemed to have been disallowed.]2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I seek leave to make a short statement.Leave granted.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was reconstituted in August following the formation of the new Senate in July. The committee took the earliest opportunity to raise concerns with ministers on specific instruments and understands that replies on these concerns might be imminent. However, the period in which a motion of disallowance may be given on these instruments will lapse today, and the committee is of the view that it should protect its options in relation to its concerns with these instruments. The committee anticipates that replies to its concerns will be received shortly and, if satisfactory, the relevant notice of motion to disallow will be withdrawn. As usual, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Airports (Protection of Airspace) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1) Statutory Rules 1999 No. 113Item 5 of the Schedule to these Regulations substitutes a new paragraph 7(2)(c) in the Principal Regulations. The former paragraph included reference to the height `above ground' of a proposed building, but the substituted paragraph refers to the height of a proposed building `above the Australian Height Datum'. There appears to be no indication, either in the Regulations or the enabling Act, of the meaning of this term, or where its meaning could be ascertained.New subregulation 15A(3) of the Principal Regulations, to be inserted by item 11 of the Schedule, provides that if a delegate of the Secretary does not, within 21 days, give a decision on a proposal to undertake a controlled activity, the proposal shall be taken to be refused. This provision may be unfair on the proponents of such activities.The Explanatory Statement provides only a general description of the effect of these Statutory Rules, and does not provide a detailed commentary, item by item in the Schedule, of their meaning and effect.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1)Statutory Rules 1999 No. 97The Regulations prescribe fees for an application for a source or facility licence. Neither the Statutory Rules, nor the Explanatory Statement, indicate the basis on which the fees have been set.Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 3)Statutory Rules 1999 No. 107Items 5, 7 and 9 of the Schedule to these Regulations substitute new subregulations 24(1), 25(1) and 26(1) in the Principal Regulations. The Explanatory Statement, however, makes no reference to these changes. Reference to the form, which these subregulations took previously, reveals that the effect of the amendments is to remove a prohibition on sub-delegation by the Finance Minister, the Finance Chief Executive and the Chief Executive of an Agency, respectively. Furthermore, items 6 and 8 of the Schedule insert new regulations 24A and 25A, which permit the Treasurer and the Treasury Chief Executive to delegate any of their powers and functions, with no prohibition on sub-delegation.Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2)Statutory Rules 1999 No. 98These Statutory Rules amend the Principal Regulations in relation to returns made by the holders of fisher receiver permits. One of these changes inserts a new paragraph 10B(3)(d) which requires returns to be received by AFMA within 10 days after the day when the fish are received by the permit holder. The Explanatory Statement advises that previously the return referred to in that paragraph had to be posted to AFMA but that the requirement to post created evidential problems. The Statement does not, however, provide information on what these problems were.The new paragraph merely requires the return to be received by the Authority. Thus it would appear that persons required to send the relevant return may not know for some time whether they have complied with the provision.Hazardous Waste (Regulation and Exports and Imports)(Decision IV/9) Regulations 1999Statutory Rules 1999 No. 102The effect of these Statutory Rules is to amend the Schedule to the enabling Act. While this is permitted by subsection 62(2) of that Act, the Regulation Impact Statement notes, in paragraph 7, that it would be desirable to incorporate these changes by amendment of the Act itself `at a subsequent date'.Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 6)Statutory Rules 1999 No. 81Paragraph 6(3)(a) provides that the amendments made by items [4401] to [4403] in the Schedule shall apply to applications for review by the Migration Review Tribunal, if those applications were made, but not finally determined, before 1 July 1999. Those amendments redraft parts of regulations 4005, 4006A and 4007 in the light of the decision of the Federal Court in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Seligman , which had held that another regulation, r.2.25B, was invalid. The Explanatory Statement advises that the purpose of the amendments is to maintain the intended effect of the Regulations read as a whole. Nevertheless it may be argued that by having the charges apply even to applications which had been filed and commenced some time before these Statutory Rules were made, the effect of paragraph 6(3)(a) gives retrospective operation to the amendments made by items [4401] to [4403].The Explanatory Statement also advises that the amendment made by item [101] in Schedule 1 is to substitute a new subregulation 4.13(1) in the Principal Regulations thereby increasing the prescribed fee for an application for review by the Migration Review Tribunal from $850 to $1400. However, the Statement does not advise that the fee of $850, set by Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 4), was to take effect from 1 June 1999, and the current increase to $1400 takes effect from 31 May 1999.Military Superannuation and Benefits Amendment Trust Deed 1999 (No. 1) made under subregulation 5(1) of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991By virtue of item 20 of the Schedule to this instrument, the Military Superannuation and Benefits Board is given a discretion in determining whether to reduce part of the benefit payable to a member, and, if a reduction is to be made, the amount thereof. However, from the explanation given in the Explanatory Statement, it appears that the reduction should be made in any case, in order to ensure the payment of the surcharge deduction amount.National Measurement Regulations 1999Statutory Rules 1999 No. 110Regulation 85 lists those decisions made under these Statutory Rules which may be subject to reconsideration and, if necessary, external merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, determinations made under r.52 are not included.Although these Regulations are substantial, covering 114 pages, the Explanatory Statement is two pages long and provides nothing more than a general overview of the Regulations.Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1)Statutory Rules 1999 No. 101New subregulation 12(2) and 13(2) of the Principal Regulations impose an apparently strict obligation on an operator to give notice of, and to report, an incident, and then, in subregulation 12(3) and 13(3), grant to the operator grounds of exculpation from that strict liability. However, the Explanatory Statement gives no reason for this imposition of strict liability, nor for what is, in effect, a reversal of the onus of proof, in that it is for the operator to establish the grounds of exculpation.New subregulation 12(2) and 13(2) also reduce the time within which the operator must give notice of, and report, a non-fatal incident from 24 hours to four hours and from 28 days to 72 hours, respectively. The only reason given by the Explanatory Statement is that the new time limits `provide some consistency' with those limits imposed under unspecified Marine Orders. In this instance, however, consistency might have been attained by an amendment to the Marine Orders themselves rather than to these Regulations.Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1)Statutory Rules 1999 No. 112The Explanatory Statement notes that subsection 9(6) of the Public Service Act 1922 provides that the Governor-General may make regulations in relation to officers and employees of the Parliament on the recommendation of the President and/or the Speaker. However, neither the Explanatory Statement, nor the Act itself, indicates whether the recommendation of the President or the Speaker is mandatory or directory. These Statutory Rules do not appear to indicate on their face that they have been made on the recommendation of either or both of the President or the Speaker. Telecommunications (Charges) Determination No. 1 of 1999, Amendment Determination No. 1 of 1999 made under section 53 of the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997Although the Explanatory Statement advises that the purpose of this Determination is to delay the commencement of the Telecommunications (Charges) Determination No. 1 of 1999 from 5 May 1999 to 1 July 1999, that Determination, despite being gazetted on 5 May 1999, was expressed to commence on 10 May 1999. Indeed, 5 May 1999 was prior not only to the date of commencement of the earlier Determination, but also to the date of making of the current Determination.Business77927792Motion (by Senator Patterson) proposed:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2 p.m. today.No. 4— Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999No. 5— Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999No. 6— War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999No. 7— Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999No. 8— Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1998No. 9— Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1999No. 10— Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Bill 1999Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill 1999No. 13— Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 199909:34:007792O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—There are two matters that I want to raise in relation to this motion. The first is that we would oppose No. 10 being on the list for today. That was something that was unclear from the whips meeting last night. I apologise, as I did not have the opportunity to talk to you this morning. I am not able to say that we could treat that item of legislation as non-controversial. Secondly, I do not have item No. 13 in front of me, and I would seek some assistance as to what it is.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—I am advised that No. 13 is the Social Security (Family Allowance and Related Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I have been advised that the minister and the opposition spokesperson have indicated that that is okay. I will actually be taking those bills through. When we come to lunchtime, we will not bring those bills on if there is a concern with respect to government business order of the day No. 10 expressed by the appropriate person on the opposition side.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I am happy for the matter to proceed on that basis; that is, that if the opposition has a concern about either or both of those pieces of legislation, they will not be dealt with. I also understand that there is a possibility that the government might seek to introduce another piece of legislation which is urgent, as I understand it. That may or may not be the case. I can indicate that the opposition would consider that matter positively. I think the government knows which piece of legislation we are talking about.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Noting the undertakings given by the government with respect to items Nos 10 and 13, the question is that the motion moved by Senator Patterson be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.7792Motion (by Senator Patterson)—agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(a) general business notice of motion no. 281 standing in the name of Senator Crossin, relating to benefits for Australian Defence Force personnel; and(b) consideration of government documents.Notices77927792Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 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 31 August 1999.General business notice of motion no. 271 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to student poverty, postponed till 30 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 30 August 1999.Motion (by Senator Allison)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 136 standing in her name for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on superannuation and financial services, be postponed till the next day of sitting.Committees779377937793Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in April 2000:(a) the state of the environment of Gulf St Vincent;(b) the expected impacts on that environment; and(c) the possible enhancements to protection measures in relation to that environment.Miscellaneous7793Motion (by Senator Allison)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) comments by the Director and Operations Manager of Pangea Resources Australia Pty Ltd, Mr Marcis Kurzeme, in the WestAustralian newspaper of 24 August 1999, to the effect that Pangea will abandon its idea to locate an international nuclear waste repository in Western Australia if the proposal meets with continued public opposition, (ii) the strong concerns expressed by senior Western Australian Government figures, including the Premier (Mr Court) and the Opposition Leader (Dr Gallop), that foreign nuclear waste should not be stored in Western Australia, (iii) the strong commitments expressed by senior Commonwealth Government figures, including the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin), that foreign nuclear waste will not be stored in Australia, and (iv) that these concerns reflect the broader public opposition across Australia to the proposal; and(b) again expresses its fundamental opposition to the proposal by Pangea Resources to situate an international nuclear waste repository in Western Australia, or anywhere else within the territories of the Commonwealth of Australia, on the grounds that such a repository poses significant threats to Australia's environment, public safety and sovereignty.Miscellaneous7793Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to:That, with regard to the current shipment of highly radioactive mixed oxide fuel that will travel past Australia's southern coast through the Tasman Sea on route to Japan, the Senate:(a) notes: (i) that this may be the first of many such shipments of highly radioactive nuclear fuel or waste which may take this route, (ii) that there is no prior notification as to the route these shipments take, (iii) that there is a lack of an adequate liability and compensation regime in the event of an accident involving such shipments, and (iv) the strong concern of New Zealand and other South Pacific countries regarding these shipments through the Tasman Sea and the South Pacific;(b) deplores the Australian Government's effective endorsement of these highly radioactive shipments and its active discouragement of South Pacific countries from pursuing this issue; and(c) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) revoke its endorsement of shipments of highly radioactive nuclear material through the Tasman Sea and South Pacific, (ii) initiate a comprehensive and open scientific study of the potential environmental risks of these shipments, (iii) press the governments of Japan, France and the United Kingdom to enter into negotiations with potentially-affected countries to establish an effective system of prior notification and a comprehensive liability regime to cover shipments of highly radioactive material, and (iv) join with New Zealand and other South Pacific countries in registering strong concern about these shipments at the Thirtieth South Pacific Forum, to be held in Palau in October 1999.Miscellaneous7794Motion (by Senator Bartlett, on behalf of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: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.Miscellaneous7794Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: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.Committees779477947794Motion (by Senator Chapman) agreed to:That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 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 .77947794Motion (by Senator Calvert, on behalf of Senator Gibson) agreed to: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.Bills7794r851Billsr8487794Bills received from the House of Representatives.09:41:007794Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced by the President are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.779509:42:007795Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—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—CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1999.The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, which is now before the chamber, contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. I will only outline the major amendments here.Schedule three of this bill is operative from the first of July 1998. The amendments to remove the customs duty from inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment implement the government's commitment to this action announced in the "Investing For Growth" industry statement of December 1997.Most fully assembled information industries equipment is imported duty free. However, many inputs used in local production of the same equipment attract either the 5 per cent general manufacturing tariff rate or a 3 per cent tariff rate under a tariff concession order.Following consultation with industry, we have taken action on two fronts. The central element of the government's approach is an acceleration of duty reductions already scheduled under the information technology agreement. With the exception of a small range of finished goods, the government has brought forward by eighteen months the tariff reductions to which Australia is committed under that agreement. A free rate of duty has operated since the first of July 1998.The second element of the approach has been the creation of a new schedule 4 item in the customs tariff for those inputs not covered by the information technology agreement. This allows the duty free entry for other inputs that are currently the subject of a tariff concession order.The new item (No. 65) covers inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment. This equipment is defined in terms of a series of tariff subheadings listed in by-laws written to the new item.Australian information technology manufacturers will benefit from duty free access to key inputs which will strengthen their competitive position. The cost to government is estimated at $80 million over the eighteen months to the year 2000 and this should translate into reduced costs for industry and lower prices for consumers.Madam President, schedule four of this bill is operative on and from the first of September 1998. The former Minister for Industry, Science And Tourism, the Honourable John Moore, announced on the twenty-fourth of July 1998, the government's decisions on tariffs and other matters relating to the Industry Commission's inquiry into the medical and scientific equipment industries.The government accepted the general thrust of the commission's recommendations and the government's decisions were also taken in conjunction with other recent initiatives, particularly those announced in the "Investing For Growth" industry statement. The government's decision in relation to tariffs was to reduce the customs rate of duty to free for goods of tariff headings 9013 to 9033, inclusive, of the customs tariff with the exception of goods which are included in the passenger motor vehicle manufacturing plan, such as speed indicators and revolution counters.In respect of tariffs, the Industry Commission noted that the bulk (around eighty five percent) of medical and scientific equipment was entered under headings 9013 to 9033 of the customs tariff. About seventy five percent of medical and scientific equipment entering Australia attracts a free rate of duty. The remaining goods are subject to a nominal tariff of five percent. However, most of the goods are entered using the tariff concession system, at a rate of duty of three percent. As these goods do not compete with locally manufactured goods, there is little justification to retain these nominal tariffs.Schedule 6 of this bill implements the government's decisions in relation to customs tariff rates of duty and by-law arrangements on the Industry Commission's inquiry into machine tools and robots. These changes have operated from the first of April 1999.The first of the changes involves the reduction of import duty to free for parts of machine tools classified to heading 8466 of the tariff. These subheadings cover parts for machine tools for working metals and were dutiable at five per cent. This action will overcome the present anomaly where in some instances, the importation of the complete machines which incorporate these parts does not incur import duty.It is the government's policy to reduce the impact of tariffs on inputs to industry. The Australian machine tools industry exports in excess of ninety per cent of its production, and much of that production incorporates goods imported as parts on which customs duty was paid. The removal of the customs duty on parts for machine tools and robots is expected to makeThe Australian produced goods more internationally competitive. Based on current data and predicted trade, the anticipated cost to the government in forgone revenue is estimated between $5 million and $5.6 million per annum.The government has also decided to delete items 48, 49 and 55 of schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. These items provide a free rate of duty on goods which satisfy certain criteria, principally that there are no substitutable goods made in Australia.Item 48 covers parts and accessories for machine tools for the working of metals. As the duty on these parts and accessories is being reduced to free in this schedule, the duty free concession accorded by item 48 is no longer required and is being repealed. The impact on industry is expected to be negligible because of the offsetting arrangements of tariff reductions.Item 49 provides a concession to importers for certain parts for machines which incorporate a computer controller, for example, electric lasers and electromagnetic soldering machines. Trade statistics reveal that this item has had little use and its cancellation will have little impact on industry.Item 55 was created in 1992 to provide an import duty concession for machine tools and parts thereof, for the working of advanced materials, such as carbon fibres and exotic metals. Trade figures indicate thatThis particular item has not been used by industry in the past five years or so. The cost to industry through its revocation is expected to be minimal.The amendments contained in the other schedules of this bill are of an administrative or technical nature and have no affect on rates of customs duty and have no revenue implications.I commend the bill.CRIMES AMENDMENT (FINE ENFORCEMENT) BILL 1999This bill amends section 15A of the Crimes Act 1914.Effective and efficient mechanisms to ensure that fines are paid are an essential part of any criminal justice system. This bill is a small but significant step in the Commonwealth's ongoing efforts to ensure that federal fines can be enforced at the least possible enforcement cost to the taxpayer.As a result of the separation of powers requirement in the Commonwealth Constitution, penalties ranging from imprisonment to property seizure can only be imposed on a federal fine defaulter by a court. This requirement has caused some administrative difficulties, because the Commonwealth relies on States and Territories to enforce its fines, and many of these States and Territories have moved to devolve enforcement powers to administrative agencies or to enforcement units within the court system.The effect of the amendments in this bill will be to allow some corresponding devolution in federal cases. The bill will exempt fine enforcement from the general rule that only a magistrate can exercise federal judicial jurisdiction. Instead, federal judicial jurisdiction to enforce fines will be available to any officer of a summary court with equivalent jurisdiction under State or Territory law, subject to one qualification I will outline below.There are three main reasons for allowing court officers to enforce federal fines. First, the `fine enforcement' burden imposed on busy magistrates will be eased. Secondly, many rural and regional areas have a court officer in permanent residence, whereas a magistrate may only visit periodically on circuit. In these areas, federal fine enforcement will be easier and more timely if court officers can impose relevant penalties.Finally, fine enforcement systems in a number of States and Territories rely heavily on court officers to impose penalties for fine default. In these States and Territories, the ability to use court officers in federal cases will allow federal cases to be dealt with more efficiently within the State/Territory fine enforcement system.As a matter of federal constitutional law, a State or Territory court officer can only exercise federal judicial power if his or her decision is subject to appeal to, or to review by, a magistrate. States and Territories will be notified that their law must allow some scope for appeal/ review if they want officers of their courts of summary jurisdiction to be able to impose penalties on federal fine defaulters.The financial impact of the amendments is not quantifiable. The amendments will not require additional funding, but will facilitate the use of more efficient fine enforcement procedures.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Miscellaneous779609:44:007796Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That the following instruments be disallowed:(a) Amendment of section 82.0, 82.3 and 82.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders, dated 28 April 1999 and made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 ; and(b) Exemptions Nos CASA 14/1999, CASA 15/1999 and CASA 17/1999, made under regulation 308 of the Civil Aviation Regulations.This is a very important disallowance motion. Curiously enough, it is a disallowance motion to improve air safety in Australia against civil aviation orders which will otherwise be promulgated which reduce air safety in rural and regional Australia. I will comment on some of the dynamics behind this in a moment, but first let me read directly from the briefing sheets which senators have from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, AOPA, which has 17,000 members:AOPA was of the understanding that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority planned to expand the areas of provision of flight information vital to the safety of flights in regional areas by allowing weather, traffic and other information to be broadcast by non Air Services personnel on common radio frequencies known as a UNICOM. The basis for this change in the provision of air services was the proven overseas experience in the operation and use of UNICOM services.The Airline Owners and Pilots Association attached a table to the briefing sheet which they had prepared comparing UNICOM facilities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the international standards and the Australian proposals before the amendment and after the changes to the proposal. How Australia will compare after the introduction of the rules, that is, if my disallowance motion today fails or if no rules are made, is clearly illustrated at the end of the table.When you look at the table you see that, as against other countries, Australia will fail to provide traffic information. It is not defined whether there will be safety information. Runway conditions won't be available for planes approaching airports. Whether fuel is available won't be known, won't be supplied. Dispatch information, pilot and passenger transit and other service requests—no. Communication with other ground units permitted—no. Air traffic control delay, plan and clearance messages relays—no.The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association briefing goes on to say:The improvements to safety by providing Beep-Back Units where particular aerodromes warranted them were well canvassed by CASA and strongly recommended by an independent consultant's report . . . October 1997). That report and the CASA analysis of the proposal took as its basis, air safety incidents at Uncontrolled Aerodromes—this is the regional aerodromes we are dealing with—as well as the comparative analysis of overseas operations. The Radio Communications Act, administered by the Australian Communications Authority permits the licensing and establishment of such facilities.Only two measures were required to establish full service UNICOM's in Australia. The introduction of legislation to permit non Airservices personnel to hold air-ground radio licenses and minor amendments to the Civil Aviation Regulations.They were the two measures. To continue:The legislation to permit private air ground services and operators was defeated in a Senate vote earlier this year.The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association goes on to make this comment:The amendment to CAO 82 which the Government tabled—which we are today moving to disallow—does not provide any improvement in air safety. This rule waters down the Government's and CASA's original intentions to have cheap and reliable BEEP-BACK Units placed at critical locations at busy aerodromes in regional areas. There are three main reasons why the current proposed arrangements provided under CAO 82 do not provide safety improvements:One, a Beep-back unit confirms that pilots are on the right frequency, their radio is working and they are at the right aerodrome.That is pretty basic. To continue:To be effective they have to be located on the lowest point of the aerodrome and broadcast the name of the aerodrome itself.You might imagine that this could apply, say, to Taree, Uluru or Casino—regional aerodromes of that variety. An original CASA recommendation was that such beep-back units be installed:The rule in its present form now allows these units to be placed anywhere near the aerodrome and no longer requires the name of the aerodrome to be broadcast.In a footnote there is the example:. . . we now have a situation such as in the North Coast Area of NSW, where one beep back unit on a hill in the area is to suffice for three airports, Taree, Kempsey and Port Macquarie because they are close together—I believe that will be placed on the Three Brothers. And there are other examples of this:Therefore there is no improvement to the current situation where air safety incidents occur as a result of errors in communication, frequency selection or failure to monitor radio frequencies by pilots.The second reason why the current proposed arrangements are not improving safety in regional airports is, and I quote:. . . allowing persons on the ground, with suitable training and with a UNICOM license to provide weather, traffic and other information, would have provided a service currently denied in regional areas by Airservices and the Government. Such a simple service—and this involves a human being, which is critical, ultimately, to air safety—has the capacity to significantly enhance the safety of flight operations by providing all pilots, not just airline operators—not just the big operators, that is—and those undertaking flights under the Instrument Flight Rules, with current and up to date weather and aerodrome conditions as well as traffic information. The Australian General Aviation Industry and the Regional Airlines in their current depressed state can no longer afford the expensive government provided Airservices facilities. Allowing licensed and trained private individuals—somebody with a radio, in other words—or companies to provide this information would have filled this vital gap in accurate and timely aeronautical information. This current Rule—the one that I am moving to disallow—denies this opportunity—to provide accurate and timely aeronautical information—and restricts any UNICOM type ground operators to providing weather information only. Many local aero clubs and other community organisations in rural and regional Australia would have gladly lent their efforts and expertise to provide this type of service. That is because that is what they want. These are the people who are vitally involved with this measure and believe that their safety is being compromised by this order, which should be disallowed.The third reason that the Airline Owners and Pilots Association points to is:. . . CASA claims to have had industry input. AOPA and other members of the General Aviation Industry were not consulted. CASA merely consulted with the Airlines—the big movers and players. You might remember that this is the very point that former director, Dick Smith, repeatedly pointed out as being the fault in the system of delivery of air services in Australia—the influence of the big airlines—and, I might add to that, their own control of their approach by what is good for their pockets. The Airline Owners and Pilots Association goes on to say:Nor did CASA propose any other alternative solutions but to have the airlines install and pay for the units, and required them only for aerodromes service by them.The other aerodromes are left with nothing. To continue:Faced with opposition from the airlines about costs and legal liability of this proposal, CASA abandoned the original idea and produced the current amendments which were tabled in Parliament.In other words, CASA rolled over. It continues:CASA did not consult widely with aircraft owners, pilots or other industry participants. To quote from the RIS prepared by CASA and which accompanied the table amendments to CAO:`Several meetings with regional airlines and the Australian Airports Association were held . . . at which the airlines made their views known concerning the initially drafted CASA requirements, and a final position on the regulatory approach was reached. This final regulatory approach has the support of the airlines.' (CASA Regulatory Impact Statement page 14)The Airlines Owners and Pilots Association goes on to finally comment:The current amendments do not require the Airlines to make this service available to other users of the aerodrome.It is a provision for the elite or the big movers and players. The association, representing 17,000 others, is angry about this and feels that their safety requirements are being overlooked. The report continues:The current amendments . . . do not require the Airlines to even broadcast the information on the Aerodrome operating or advisory frequency. The Airlines can continue to provide this information to themselves, on a company agent to company aircraft basis, but in the process exclude other airspace users—these are planes carrying people—from providing or having this service. That is hardly fair or safe.I think that is an understatement at the end of that information, which has been provided to all senators. In the light of that, I would expect that we should have every party in here agreeing with this. Sadly, it is my information that we are not going to get the government or the Labor Party supporting it. I cannot help but wonder why that is so. If it is on past performance, it will be because the big airlines have been able, through CASA, to have their sway again. They are the big lobbyists, they have the effort, they have the big money.Let me provide a solution here. I understand it would cost about $1 million a year maximum to put a radio operator at the 20 or 30 regional airports around this country to give all the travelling public, as well as the pilots who go up solo, the safety that is required. Let me provide an alternative. Let's have Ansett and Qantas close down the Chairman's Lounges, which we politicians get such comfort from, and let us go back to the lounges provided for other air travellers. That would save much more than a million dollars a year. Let us have Qantas and Ansett put the money from those expensive lounges, with their big vases of flowers, the lovely coffee, the wine, the free beer and hors d'oeuvres, the newspapers and space, and phones and so on, into real safety for people in this country. There is a solution, and the airlines would have a few million dollars extra in their pockets as well.Something is wrong when Ansett and Qantas cannot find one million dollars. Just the other week, Qantas announced a profit for this year of $224 million. Something is wrong if they cannot find one million out of that to provide safety at regional airports which the Airlines Owners and Pilots Association, representing people who use those airports, say is a must, is basic. I cannot understand why either the coalition or the ALP cannot respond to a community lobby like that. It seems to me that there is, as Dick Smith has said often in the past, something seriously wrong with the political dynamic here. You might say, `Well so what? That's the way things work.' I would say, `So what?' except that it is safety in the air for rural and regional Australia which is at stake. We have to take this very seriously indeed.I am not going to make any frivolous statements about this. Every senator has the responsibility to think for himself or herself as far as this matter is concerned. Further down the line, when there is an inquiry following some accident which finds that services which should have been provided at rural airports were not there, and that led to an accident, it will be no good us saying, `Let's have an inquiry into CASA.'5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—There is only one accident around here, and that's you.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That frivolous injection, Senator, does you no good. This is an important matter. I am appealing for responsibility in this place about this matter. The inquiry will then have to focus on how the Senate came to make this decision, to vote against this disallowance motion which would improve safety in regional and rural areas. We have to think independently about this. We have to put our own comfort second to the safety of rural and regional Australia.At this eleventh hour, I make a further appeal that the Senate support this very important disallowance motion and so uphold regulations delivering better safety throughout this country as far as airline services are concerned.09:58:007799Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I would like to concur with Senator Brown's comments and add to them in a couple of instances. The two issues which we are facing today largely surround the straight-in approach that is the industry accepted principle for larger commercial aircraft. For the straight-in approach to work efficiently—and statistics can prove that it is the safer away for commercial aircraft to enter rural airports—that requires several issues to be complied with. The first one is that there must be five-kilometre visibility in the area and there must be 1.5-kilometre vertical visibility as well. It then requires that other pilots within that area be aware that there is a commercial airline coming into the area at anything up to 300 knots.If we have a small commercial aircraft that is on final leg into that airport and we have a commercial aircraft coming in on a straight-in, they need to be able to communicate. The pilots on the straight-in approach are required to have two pilots in attendance, one obviously to fly. The purpose of the second one in that case is to watch for visibility of other aircraft that have reported they are in the area. The issue that is before the Senate today will allow the commercial pilots to transmit on their own airline frequency, not the frequency of the airport. There is clearly a danger there if you have a small private aircraft or a small charter commercial aircraft in final leg which find themselves in the same vicinity as a commercial aircraft coming in on a straight-in approach.The second issue relates to the beep transponders. As Senator Brown has raised, the proposal will see Ballina, Casino and Lismore all connected to one beep-back. That beep-back will not carry the identification of any of those three airports. The purpose of the beep-back is twofold. When a pilot is ready to take off from an airport and transmits for an all clear, the beep-back will come back to him if it is on an individual airport with the beep and also identify that airport. We have Ballina, Casino and Lismore proposed to be on one beep-back. We have Taree, Port Macquarie and Kempsey on another beep-back. I put to the senators in the chamber today to consider this scenario. A pilot has left Ballina and is flying to Taree. He radios forward to Taree at a certain point in time that he is in the area, but what he has not done is change his frequency from the beep-back at Ballina to the beep-back at Taree. Everybody back in Ballina knows that he is going to Taree but nobody in Taree knows that he will arrive. The purpose of the beep- back is twofold: it is to assure the pilot that he is on the correct frequency, as well as letting everybody else in the area know that he is there.Aviation uses the terminology `SA'—situation awareness—for the level of awareness. The problem we have with the government's amendments is that this is going to be seriously diminished by both of these proposals. In the case of the straight-in approach of commercial airlines, if they are only talking to themselves, nobody else who is in finals in that area will know of it. In the case of the beep-backs, if the beep-backs do not clearly indicate the airport that the aircraft is operating out of, again the situation awareness is greatly impaired. I would like to remind each and every one of the senators in this chamber that we have a duty of care. Through the workplace health and safety acts, each one of us has a duty of care. There is no point in waiting until we are investigating an accident to do something about it. The time to do it is now. It will be on the conscience of each person in this chamber if, as a result of these changes to CASA, a subsequent accident is clearly proven to be because of the reduction in the situation awareness in these rural areas. It will be damning to everybody in this chamber.10:05:007800Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Brown's disallowance motion relates to amendments and exemptions that CASA made in April 1999 to improve air safety at non-controlled aerodromes. There are 120 non-controlled aerodromes around Australia, including the aerodromes at places like Yulara, Bundaberg, Mount Isa and Port Hedland. Non-controlled aerodromes do not have a control tower. Pilots maintain separation by radioing their positions and intentions to each other. The aviation regulations normally require aircraft approaching a non-controlled aerodrome to join the local traffic pattern. This is a giant oval in the sky above the aerodrome, and pilots have to fly around it before they can make their final approach to the runway. The amendments and exemptions that CASA implemented in April allow airlines to conduct what are called `straight-in approaches', subject to strict safeguards. A straight-in approach is one where a pilot lines the plane up with the runway and lands without going around the circuit.Senator Brown wants to return the aviation legislation to where it stood in November 1998. At that time, CASA imposed a poorly considered set of requirements on non-controlled aerodromes. CASA implemented them with the best of intentions, but they would have had the perverse effect of watering down air safety. The unintended consequence of Senator Brown's motion is that it would create a less safe flying environment in regional Australia.I can assure the Senate that CASA and the government still intend to see the widespread adoption of staffed radio services, unicoms and certified ground-air operators. The April amendments should be seen as a measured first step towards that goal. CASA's objective is to develop expeditiously a regulatory regime that provides the framework for staffed radio services that the industry as a whole is actually prepared to use. There is, in fact, a trial going ahead at Yulara next month.Honourable senators must realise that the aviation industry is highly conservative in the best sense of the word. When people's lives are at stake, Australia's airlines—who have an unsurpassed reputation for safety—are not prepared to carry out radical and hasty changes to systems that work effectively.Unlike Senator Brown, the government and CASA have learned from the G airspace trial last year. We will continue to press for aviation reform but we recognise that effective communications and consultation are central to CASA's credibility and the smooth introduction of change. Major reforms need to be underpinned by a high level of awareness in the industry. There will always be opposition to change, and we will not desist from making necessary reforms in the face of it. But CASA must take time to work through its reforms and to give the industry enough notice so it can undertake the necessary training and adjustment. Senator Brown's intentions may be well meaning but his motion would have a perverse consequence in that airline passengers in regional Australia would be less safe. That is why the government calls on the Senate to reject it.10:09:007801Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—The opposition will not be supporting Senator Brown's disallowance motion. But I would like to make it very clear to Senator Brown that this was not a decision taken lightly or in haste. We put a considerable amount of time and effort into coming to a position on this motion, and the shadow minister I am representing has asked me to convey her thanks to Senator Brown for accommodating our desire to ensure we were fully briefed on this important issue.We are not supporting the disallowance, because we have accepted the advice of CASA that to do so will result in a less safe situation at Australia's non-controlled aerodromes. Aviation regulations coming before the Senate almost always involve technical matters—and none of us pretend to be experts in airspace management or aviation safety. Last week, the opposition moved to disallow another technical aviation regulation—but we did so not so much on the technical arguments but on the grounds of CASA's failure to consult with those most affected by the proposed changes and what we saw as a failure to follow due process.As I said, the opposition did not come to our position on this disallowance lightly. When you look at the history of this issue and at what occurs in the United States and Britain, it is very clear that it is preferable to have some level of staffed communications services on the ground at non-controlled aerodromes. That was the model Dick Smith was advancing when he was chair of CASA and, in our view, that remains the best model. It does not have to be an air traffic control tower; it can range from a service that is staffed several hours a day to one that is staffed only during peak periods or when regular public transport—RPT—operations are taking place. It does not have to be an air traffic controller providing the service but it does have to be a person with a sufficient level of training to do the job.The issue, as always, is: who bears the cost of such a service? The inability to resolve that issue seems to be at the heart of this particular problem. I note that BASI's regional airline safety study, released in May of this year, noted that the most frequent comments on the topic of the greatest safety problem facing regional airlines were: the inadequacy of see and avoid as a primary means of separating aircraft, particularly at the speeds of modern turboprop aircraft; pilots flying under visual flight rules were not sufficiently aware of the procedures used by pilots flying under instrument flight rules and were therefore unable to perceive a confliction and take appropriate action; and, finally, lack of information available to IFR pilots about VFR aircraft, as the air traffic system no longer provided such details and many VFR pilots were not using correct radio procedures.BASI concluded that `current procedures for maintaining separation between IFR regional airline aircraft and VFR aircraft at non-controlled aerodromes are inadequate and a significant collision risk exists'. So that is the problem CASA must address. CASA say they intend to move towards a unicom style system. In fact, they set off down this path last year when they introduced conditions on RPT operators flying aircraft with more than nine seats to non-controlled aerodromes. These conditions meant that the airlines would be able to operate to such aerodromes only if a `third party communications system' was provided. This requirement could be met by the provision of one of the following: an aerodrome frequency response unit—known as a beep-back unit, as already mentioned; a unicom—universal communications radio service, as already mentioned; or certified air-ground radio service. Basically, these conditions were designed to increase safety at non-controlled aerodromes—to ensure, at the very least, that all pilots selected and confirmed correct frequencies at these aerodromes.CASA also initially required a staffed radio communications service for the conduct of visual straight-in approaches at non-controlled aerodromes. This would have meant that the airlines would be exempted from having to join the traffic pattern—or the circuit—at these aerodromes, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, if they provided either a unicom radio service or a certified air-ground radio service. In effect, the airlines were given the option of putting in such a service or doing nothing. In response to that, the regional airlines told CASA that they had no intention of providing such services, that they would not seek the exemption for a straight-in approach, and would join the circuit. CASA's view was that having much faster and bigger RPT aircraft in the circuit with smaller, slower aircraft was less safe than permitting them to continue to do straight-in approaches.So CASA has put in an intervening step that allows the airlines to carry out straight-in approaches, provided they meet a series of conditions: visual conditions must prevail—with visibility of at least 5 kilometres, vertical distance from cloud of at least 1,000 feet and horizontal distance from cloud of at least 1.5 kilometres; the aircraft must have two pilots; the pilot in command must have obtained information on the wind direction and runways in use from an automatic weather station or radio contact with a company agent or an aircraft operating at the aerodrome or by visual observation; and the pilot in command must advise other aircraft when established on final approach and must give way to any other aircraft in the traffic pattern which is on base leg or final approach for any runway. Beep-back units will be used to ensure all pilots operating out of a non-controlled aerodrome have selected—and are using—the correct frequency.If we disallow these changes, we will return to the situation where the airlines have the option of doing nothing—and that means joining the traffic pattern, and that means reduced safety. Now, we are not saying that this is a particularly satisfactory outcome overall. We take the view that if something is considered to be safer—and staffed services are considered to be safer, obviously—then that is the option that should ultimately be pursued. We expect CASA to pursue that option and to pursue it quickly and vigorously. I ask the parliamentary secretary to give the Senate a very concrete and solid undertaking that it will occur and that the current situation is an interim step along that path.I would also be interested in hearing, through the parliamentary secretary, the minister's view on the proposals put forward by the Community and Public Sector Union for the introduction of an aerodrome flight information service to improve services at or near busy regional aerodromes. I would like to know whether the minister sees this as an initiative worth pursuing. If not, why not? What is wrong with a proposal that seeks to place a comprehensive traffic service on the ground at these aerodromes? Why could that not be achieved? In Labor's view, part of the problem lies in the shift away from seeing air safety as a public responsibility and towards a policy of cost recovery. We find it hard to see why, if these services make non-controlled aerodromes safer, they should not be provided by Airservices Australia and paid for partly by industry and partly by the public.In essence, we can only agree with Senator Brown that the original requirements for third party communications at non-controlled aerodromes have been watered down. We can only state that we believe a staffed service, in one guise or another, is a safer option—certainly at the busiest aerodromes. But we have accepted the advice that to disallow Senator Brown's notice of motion would mean reverting to a less safe situation than currently applies.10:16:007803Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—If one analyses the submissions we have just heard, what we can come up with is that there are safety components to the regulations that are being effectively turned around by the government through this civil aviation audit which should stand, and that there are added provisions which the government could come up with to build on that. That is to say, the two safety components should be brought together and not used to cancel each other out. That is the effect of what is happening: we are going backwards in one direction and a little forwards in another direction, and that is not good enough.I come back again to the point that regional airlines in the UK would not operate into airports—they cannot do so legally, as I understand it—which do not have the facili ties that the regulations now being disallowed provide for. So why should regional airports in Australia be denied those facilities? The parliamentary secretary has said that we are very conservative in a good way here and that we have to proceed slowly through experience. The reality is that we are way behind overseas standards. Part of the safety record in Australia is because there is much less dense air traffic. We are not dealing with the European situation and certainly are not dealing with the UK situation. But I think we should have the safety standards that are invoked over there and should not simply let our air safety record drift back because we are not putting in world standard safety facilities.One cannot help but see the hand of the big airlines at work here. The parliamentary secretary mentions Uluru and says that the facilities are being put in there and will be trialled soon. Let me tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that that is because the timetable there is being set by the airlines and not by the government. That is what is wrong here. The airlines are dictating the call and not the government. But this is the government, and this is ministerial responsibility. You cannot even ultimately shed it back to CASA—although I think that CASA is far too much influenced by the airlines and lacking in the independence that is required if we are going to get best air safety in rural and regional Australia in the way that I have outlined and in the way that the Airline Owners and Pilots Association itself says we should be heading.There is an inherent threat here by the airlines that if they do not get what they want they will go for the oval pattern, the circuiting of airports before they come in—which arguably has problems with it. The problem there can be overcome, but it is simply not going to be overcome because the airlines through that method of threat have got the government coerced into turning around perfectly good previous standing orders for air safety. We are actually going backwards. That is the problem here: we are going backwards and not forwards. The timetable has been handed across not to safety authorities acting independently for the public good but, effec tively, to the influence of the big airlines. I repeat that $1 million to put in ground operators at 20 or 30 airports around Australia is surely not too big a price to pay when one of the two big airlines has just posted a $224 million profit.What else can I say? We are all going to vote in the way we wish to. But let me, through the parliamentary secretary, say this in summing up. We are dealing with this here in the parliament. It is our responsibility. In particular, it is the minister's responsibility to determine what is in the interests of the travelling public and of pilots in Australia. The minister has made the wrong decision here. He is wrong about this. He should be expecting a better, more independent initiative from CASA. He should be very aware of the influence of the big airlines.When the Airline Owners and Pilots Association, representing 17,000 people around the country, say that they were not consulted about this, you have to understand that something is very wrong. If the very people who are most affected by this are not consulted but the big airlines certainly are—and their hand can be seen all over this—there is a political pressure situation here which the minister needs to get out of. He cannot blame somebody else further down the line. It is his responsibility and it is the government's responsibility—and now the opposition's responsibility.We are left with the appeal for the minister to take charge of the timetable here instead of leaving it to Qantas and to Ansett. It is the minister's responsibility. The minister has to give direction to CASA to implement safety procedures bringing us up with the rest of the world and not leave it to the comfort and consideration of the boards of those airlines. That is not good enough.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—The question is that the motion standing in the name of Senator Brown relating to the disallowance of various amendments to Civil Aviation Orders and exemptions made under Civil Aviation Regulations be agreed to.10:27:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)2Brown, B. *Harris, L.55Abetz, E. Allison, L.Bartlett, A. J. J. 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.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Heffernan, W. 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. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A. *Reid, M. E. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the negative.Notices7804780410:31:007804Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I seek leave to give a notice of motion that I failed to give this morning at the appropriate time.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Leave is granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I give notice that, 10 sitting days after today, I shall move:That item 101 to schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 6), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 81 and made under the Migration Act 1958 , be disallowed. Bills7805r6467805Consideration resumed from 25 August.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering amendment No. 1 on sheet 1265, moved by Senator Brown. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.10:32:007805Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Thank you, Madam Chair. You will remember that at the end of yesterday's proceedings I drew to the parliamentary secretary's attention the important matter of imminent logging on Quamby Bluff in north-central Tasmania and the request that I had from the Deloraine Aboriginal community to state, first of all, their alarm that they had not been notified about this and, secondly, to see what I could do to find out about it. With the parliamentary secretary having the benefit of overnight consultation, I wonder if I could have the parliamentary secretary tell the committee what in fact she has been able to ascertain about the logging that is about to occur on Quamby Bluff without consultation with the indigenous people.10:33:007805Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Was the parliamentary secretary about to answer that? No? Rather than call a quorum and disturb every office in the building, I think it is appropriate that I should make a few remarks which will last for about a minute or so about the particular measure that is before the chamber.Indeed, as I understand it, Senator Forshaw will have a lot more to say in a few moments when he returns here. He is much more up to date with the particular measure before the chamber than, indeed, I am but I just thought I would make a couple of remarks on this. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us, if she could, in a few words—this will probably, I trust and am told, only require about another minute of explanation—whether or not the particular proposal that has been put up is competent or not.10:34:007805Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I wonder if you would investigate whether there was glue left on the parliamentary secretary's seat overnight. She seems to be unable to get up to answer this question. She has certainly had all night to investigate the matter I have put before her, which I assure her is important for regional communities, the very people she says that she has consulted on the matter.I think it is very important that we get an answer to that if we are going to proceed in an informed way in this session. There were pretty strong words yesterday about the secretary not being informed and about her withholding information. I am dealing here with a specific community on a specific issue that she was specifically asked about yesterday. I wonder, Mr Temporary Chairman, if you could facilitate the parliamentary secretary responding to that question.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Brown, you have requested something of me that I cannot do. I cannot force the parliamentary secretary to do anything. The question is that amendment No. 1 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.10:35:007805Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Could the parliamentary secretary tell the committee if, under the CAR reserve system, there have been new reserves created in the most recent Victorian regional forest agreement area. If so, could she tell us what the extent of those reserves are and whether, for example, at least 90 per cent of wilderness forest would be protected under the provisions of this regional forest agreement idea.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet 1265 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.10:36:007805Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Mr Temporary Chairman, through you I ask the parliamentary secretary to tell the committee whether she or her advisers did make any effort overnight to contact their departments or their opposite numbers in Tasmania to find out what was happening at Quamby Bluff.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet 1265 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to. Senator Brown, are you seeking the call again?QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I am.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Under standing order 189(3), as you have spoken twice in a row in this debate, you are not entitled to the call unless someone else rises.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes. I was just going to draw to your attention that I would not be able to speak again unless somebody else on this side rises and allows me the opportunity to get up again. Obviously, the government is using this as a means of stifling debate.Amendment not agreed to.10:38:007806Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (2), (3) and (7) on sheet 1265:(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 23), after "agreement", insert "entered into in accordance with section 4B".(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 25), omit "was entered into having", substitute "has".(7) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4B Parliamentary scrutiny of RFAs (1) Subject to section 4A, the Minister must not enter into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with this section. (2) Before signing an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Minister must cause a copy of the proposed RFA to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. (3) Either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the proposed RFA has been tabled, may, under motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA in whole or in part. (4) Where: (a) a notice referred to in subsection (3) is given with respect to a proposed RFA; and (b) at the expiration of the period during which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA would have been passed: (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the relevant motion has not been called on; or (ii) the relevant motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of; the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of. (5) If: (a) either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); or (b) the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister must not enter into the proposed RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth. (6) If: (a) neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); and (b) the proposed RFA is not deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister may inter into the RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth on or after the day immediately following the last day on which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed. (7) In this section: RFA includes an amended RFA.Moving these amendments together, I think, will facilitate the accelerated passage of this legislation, which the parliamentary secretary, by her sheer silence, obviously wants. I recommend these amendments to the chamber because we are here to ensure that, where millions of dollars of taxpayers' money are involved and where the national heritage is involved, the parliament must always itself be involved. For us not to ensure that is to abrogate our responsibilities as senators.Under the government's legislation, regional forest agreements, as you will know, Mr Temporary Chairman Hogg, are signed between a prime minister and a premier but are not brought before this parliament. I reiterate that hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into this process, and money will continue to flow. It is derelict for the parliament not to ensure that it has scrutiny of the regional forest agreements. You will also be aware that there are opposition amendments to have just some regional forest agreements brought before the parliament for scrutiny. I am proposing here that all of them be brought before the parliament for scrutiny. Let us not have any difference between Tasmania and East Gippsland, which under the Labor amendments will not have their RFAs scruti nised, and Western Australia, New South Wales and parts of Victoria, which will have regional forest agreements scrutinised.I expect, of course, that the opposition will give an explanation as to why there is this double standard. But I can assure you that in Tasmania, where the majority of people do not want woodchipping of our wild forests to continue—and that includes woodchipping of world heritage value forests, the largest temperate rainforests in Australia—there will be a sense of the national parliament treating Tasmanians as second-class citizens if we are not to have the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the Regional Forest Agreement, which impacts more on our state per head of population and per hectare than on any other state in the Commonwealth.So the Labor Party is coming only halfway on this, and, let us be frank, that is because of the influence of Labor senators from Tasmania to have it cut out. The Tasmanian Labor Party has an abhorrent record of putting itself at the service of the big out-of-state woodchip corporations, leading to the regional forest agreements. We are seeing the most rapid rate of destruction of wild forests in Tasmanian history with the export of jobs—the big woodchip piles, and indeed the piles of logs on Burnie wharf, attest to the export of jobs going on down there—and the export of profits by companies like North and Boral, which have their shareholders not in Tasmania but elsewhere in the country and around the world.The parliamentary secretary talks about regional consultation and that it is her business to make sure that regional communities are taken into account. How come the whole of Tasmania is being dumped by the government in this situation, where there is an agreement signed outside of parliament and the government saying, `We won't allow parliamentary scrutiny.' Is that looking after the interests of regional Australia? Of course it is not. It is dumping the interests of regional Australia and handing them across to the boardrooms in St Kilda Road and/or in Tokyo—the breakfast room at the Imperial Hotel in downtown Tokyo, where the representatives of the woodchip corporations go each year to be told how much or how little they are going to get for woodchips out of Tasmania's native forests. They go, tugging their forelocks, and come home with their new price, without the Tasmanian government, the Labor Party in Tasmania, even being involved in that process. What the Greens are doing here is pushing to ensure that at least the democratic process is brought into play for an important public resource of enormous public concern in Tasmania.I cannot understand why the government believes it can get away with the idea of caring for regional and rural Australia but dumping it in favour of the woodchip corporations in this way. I have explained the dynamics, but I cannot understand—and I will be interested to hear from Senator Forshaw or any of the other Labor senators—why Tasmania and why East Gippsland should be dumped out of this process. Their regional forest agreements are not for parliamentary scrutiny but there is parliamentary scrutiny for the rest. Why this double standard?10:45:007807Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Firstly, let me indicate that amendment No. 3 of Senator Brown's amendments is identical to the ALP's amendment No. 3. Obviously we will support our own amendment, but we will not be supporting the other two amendments of Senator Brown's. Consequently, they should not be grouped in the way that has been proposed, for a single vote.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—On that basis, the chair will put the items separately.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Thank you. I will deal with the Labor Party's position with respect to Senator Brown's amendments. I have to say at the outset that we sat here for a lengthy period of time yesterday—and it appears that we will again today and maybe into next week—to listen to the rhetoric of Senator Brown. Frankly, it does not assist his cause to continually try to tip buckets upon the Labor Party or other political parties with the spurious and outrageous allegations that he makes. We believe that our position on this legislation reflects the intentions of the original national forest policy statement and the RFA process—that is, to develop a viable timber industry into the future that relies less upon the use of native forests; to ensure that, hand in hand with that process, communities can survive and jobs can be preserved and, indeed, promoted; and, that the heritage and conservation values of our forest estates are also protected and enhanced.We all know that Senator Brown has a different and strongly held view from the Labor Party on these issues. His attitude is that doomsday is approaching, if not already upon us, and that, unless we effectively destroy the industry overnight, calamity will arise. We do not accept that, Senator Brown, and we will not. Therefore, we cannot support the amendments you are putting forward. They are too extreme; they are too inflexible. We particularly point out that what we are putting to this Senate, and we will be advancing later on, is a process of public and parliamentary scrutiny for the remaining RFAs.You raised the question: what about the Tasmanian RFA and the Victorian RFAs? It is our position that they have been subject to substantial public scrutiny. You have not been sitting around silent for the last 12 months or so, and neither have the other interests in this debate. Indeed, the Senate committee that looked at this legislation was able to hear evidence about the existing RFAs that have already been negotiated, as well as about the likely future ones. Our proposal substantially enhances the government's legislation in accordance with the national forest policy principles. We frankly do not support your amendments Nos 2 and 7, and we will press our proposals for parliamentary scrutiny when that time arises in the debate. In particular, we submit that your proposed amendment No. 7 for parliamentary scrutiny of RFAs, whilst it is largely covered by our amendment, leaves out one important process—that rejected draft RFAs should be able to be resubmitted or submitted again in an amended form.We want to establish a system under which an RFA that the parliament does not believe meets the criteria that have been established should be able to be taken away and renegotiated or redrafted or amended to enable it to be ultimately approved for that particular region. Your proposal would not allow that subsequent process of a disallowed regional forest agreement to be remedied. I venture to say that that is precisely what you would desire to happen—to kill off any RFA that might come before this parliament, whether it meets the criteria or whether it does not meet the criteria.We are about a system whereby regional forest agreements will be negotiated, put in place and backed up by Commonwealth legislation on the basis that those RFAs are consistent with the guidelines and the principles laid down in the national forest policy statement and other relevant criteria. Therefore, we will not support Greens amendments Nos 2 and 7. As I said, your amendment No. 3 is identical to our No. 3. Therefore, we would obviously be supporting that.10:53:007808Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I will be making some comments on this amendment, which the government will not be supporting. But before I do that I would like to make some comments specifically on the Tasmanian RFA, which was the subject of some discussion yesterday.I wish to point out to Senator Brown that the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement clearly states that Tasmania's forest management systems provide for ecologically sustainable forest management, sustainable yield, a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and industry development through the intensive forest management strategy. This is the context in which the statement on sustainable forest management in Tasmania was signed in January 1998. It will be important in promoting the products of Tasmania's sustainably managed forests both here and overseas.Both the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian governments are committed to the full implementation of the RFA, and both governments are continuing to monitor implementation of the Tasmanian RFA. Long-term monitoring of the RFA outcomes will be through the use of agreed sustainability indicators and through monitoring against agreed milestones. The sustainability indicators will be based on criteria and indicators developed by the Montreal Indicators Group, comprising representatives from state and Commonwealth governments. Work on that is ongoing.In Tasmania, the reporting arrangements for implementing those commitments include a five-yearly review which will be open for public comment. It will use sustainability indicators, and will satisfy requirements for a state of the forest report and produce a public report. The RFA also calls for annual reports on implementation of the RFAs for the first five years of the agreements, with reports every five years thereafter. The first annual report has been prepared for the Tasmanian RFA and is publicly available. The next report is due at the end of 1999. Under the Tasmanian RFA the state has also agreed to publish and make publicly available its annual compliance audits of the implementation of the Forest Practices Act, the Forest Practices Code and the five-yearly independent expert reviews of the operation of that code.With regard to the endangered species about which Senator Brown was anxious to learn more, it should be recognised, as I stated yesterday, that regional forest agreements provide for conservation of biodiversity at three scales of management: regional management scale, subregional or catchment management scale and local scale. Yesterday Senator Brown asked questions in relation to two specific Tasmanian species. I am advised that there are some 450 species listed as rare, endangered or vulnerable under Tasmanian legislation, of which more than 200 are specifically listed in the Tasmanian RFA. Obviously, it is unreasonable to expect me to have on hand details of the specific status of all these species. However, I have followed up Senator Brown's queries with the responsible minister and, as I said yesterday, I will pass the information to Senator Brown as it comes to hand.It is also worth noting that, on the regional management scale in RFA regions, up to 48 per cent of forests are permanently protected through dedicated reserves. On the subregional or catchment scale, forests outside dedicated reserves are protected from logging through the establishment of informal reserves and special protection zones. So up to 40 per cent of these forests are completely excluded from harvesting. On the local management scale, forests available to industry for logging are protected by a combination of special management zones, management prescriptions and codes of forest practice, which either exclude or limit the extent of logging according to the biodiversity and other significant environmental values in the area. Out of a total of 13.3 million hectares of Australia's multiple use native forests available for harvesting, approximately 110,000 hectares—or less than one per cent—are harvested in any one year.The government is confident that those provisions provide a comprehensive network and system for the conservation and protection of biodiversity at all scales of management. This is a strong approach by government on conservation and protection of that. These RFAs are truly historic agreements, and we would hope they would be supported by all parties and Independents.With regard to this particular amendment, the advice that I have from the Office of General Counsel, dated 10 August 1999, concludes in relation to the proposed parliamentary scrutiny process that, when a house of the parliament is debating and voting on a resolution for disapproval of a proposed RFA or when a member of either house is deciding whether to move a motion that may lead to the RFA being deemed to have been disapproved, there will not be and cannot be any restriction on the matters which the members will take into account in deciding whether or not the minister may enter into the RFA. The process in the parliament will be a purely political one. If an RFA is disapproved under clause 4(b), the Commonwealth will have acted on a discriminatory basis in refusing to enter into the RFA.If there are any potential exporters of woodchips from the region, the Commonwealth will have given preference contrary to section 99 of the Constitution. Moreover, the bill, if amended as proposed, will probably itself infringe section 99. The bill expressly sets up a legislative scheme under which it is possible that woodchips sourced from one region will be able to be exported, while woodchips sourced from another region will not. 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. The bill, if enacted in that form, would then be invalid.Therefore, the government cannot support these amendments on those grounds alone and, even without this insurmountable constitutional barrier, the proposed amendments would undermine and politicise the RFA process to the extent that it would be difficult to sign RFAs at all.11:00:007810Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—What codswallop! The minister says this is an insurmountable constitutional problem. It is of the government's own making. The government has set out to discriminate between the states by giving each of the states the power to essentially dictate its own RFA. So, they are different between different places, or they can have an RFA or not. All this is overcome by this government taking its proper responsibilities for Australia's forests and dealing with them in a responsible manner right across the country.Any constitutional concerns that come out of this are the responsibility of one Prime Minister John Howard. He is there to look after the interests of all of us. Not here he is not; he is discriminating between states. Yesterday the parliamentary secretary told us that it was necessary to have a different definition of what a reserve was to protect the environmental amenity in each of the states. The government is dictating this discriminatory process between states. She gets up here and says that somehow or other we therefore cannot allow the ultimate outcome here, which is parliamentary scrutiny. Either you set up a situation where there may be some constitutional question or you deny parliament its right, responsibility and obligation to vet agreements which deal not only with the national heritage but hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. What an absurd situation and what a silly argument from the minister. The fact is that the government is being discriminatory because the woodchip corporations want to be discriminatory. On top of that, the Labor Party is entering into the discrimination as of 1 March this year and saying that agreements before that do not get brought before parliament, but agreements after that do. Senator Forshaw says that that means there has been more scrutiny of the regional forest agreements before this magic date of 1 March. Really? Has any regional forest agreement had more scrutiny than the Western Australian one, or more public attention?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Yes.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Yes, Tasmania, for 15 years.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is quite ludicrous. The senators interjecting know full well, if they are honest, that it is the intervention of the Tasmanian Labor Party that is denying Tasmanians their right to have a regional forest agreement scrutinised. It is their anti-public attitude that is at the core of this.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—That's not true.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I have no doubt Senator Sherry is going to get to his feet and say why it is that he thinks parliament should scrutinise the Western Australian agreement but he would deny that same right to Tasmania and make Tasmanians second class. That is his position on this.The question to the Labor Party has to be: why has 1 March become the date for the cut-off? There has been no explanation from Senator Forshaw. The question to the parliamentary secretary is: are you not simply using a potential constitutional showdown of your own making to deny parliament its responsibility to be vetting these very important regional forest agreements?Finally, I have a couple of comments on the parliamentary secretary's asseveration that some one per cent will be harvested per annum. Forests live more than 100 years; the great trees of the forests live for many centuries. You do not have to have fifth grade mathematics and an envelope to work out that this one per cent cut a year means the overcutting of forests and denying these forests the ability to grow to the stage where they have nesting sites for owls, bats and possums. It is cutting down the ecological component of those forests.In the same paragraph the parliamentary secretary talks about ecologically sustainable management, having agreed yesterday she did not know what that meant. She could not defend the term. She was in a totally hapless position because the advice backing she has had could not come to the rescue either. Because it is a lie; the whole concept of ecological sustainability used in the way it is put in the regional forest agreements is a lie. That is at the heart of this matter, and the Australian people know that. When you move in, firebomb, poison and cut down forests and call that ecological sustainability, you are engaged in a lie.What sort of parliament are we to be not only promulgating such a lie and taking it from the regional forest agreements but denying ourselves the ability to scrutinise it and see how it measures up to the reality of the on-the-ground destruction of our forests?11:06:007811Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I rise to express on behalf of the Australian Democrats our support for amendments Nos 2, 3 and 7 moved by Senator Brown. In particular, we feel strongly about the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. That is no more apparent than in my home state of Western Australia, where there is continued public outrage over the secrecy in which the state government has involved itself in forming, and then partly repealing, the RFA in that state.I note that amendment No. 7 moved by Senator Brown is in conflict with amendment No. 7 moved by the Australian Labor Party. Our view on that quite simply is that we would much rather see Senator Brown's motion succeed where the mechanism is there such that, once an RFA has been disapproved of, it cannot then be re-presented by the government. We see that as being crucial to the whole notion of balance that is so desperately needed within this debate.11:08:007811Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have a sense of foreboding that the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement is going to be cut out, courtesy of the Labor Party as well as the government, and therefore will not get its opportunity to move into the light of parliamentary scrutiny. It would be remiss of me, therefore, not to briefly visit the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement and ask the parliamentary secretary—who has been forewarned of this by the speech of Senator Bourne, in fact—about the lock-down provisions in that regional forest agreement for satisfying community concern about the forests of Tasmania. This, of course, is a Commonwealth responsibility.The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement was signed in March 1998 by Prime Minister Howard and then Premier Rundle, even though the Labor Party in Tasmania disagreed and wanted more of the forests cut down than was in the agreement. Part of that regional forest agreement was that the strategic plan for implementing the comprehensive and adequate reserve system on private land was to be developed no later than three months after that date—March 1998. I ask: can the parliamentary secretary say if that was done and, if not, why not?Tasmania was to publish a description of the methods of sustainable yield on public land, including for special species sawlogs by 31 October last year. Has that happened? If not, why not? Tasmania also was to publish and make publicly available compliance audits of the Forest Practices Act and Code and the code of reserve management annually commencing in 1998. My information is that has not happened. I ask: has it happened and, if not, why not? Tasmania was to introduce, in respect of private land, mechanisms to encourage native vegetation retention and management by this year. Has that happened? I understand it has not. Why not? The state was also to develop and implement a threatened species protection strategy—this is the ecological safeguard stuff—by 31 December last year. It did not happen. I ask the parliamentary secretary: why not? There was also to be completed and published silvicultural guidelines for the management of commercial forest types by December last year. It did not happen. Why not?What we have here is serial breaches by the Commonwealth of its obligations under the RFA. This was written in and signed by the Prime Minister to implement measures which have important conservation and social outcomes as far as Tasmania is concerned. Through this process the Prime Minister has broken his commitment. He has dishonoured the written word here that these dates would be met and that Tasmania would be seen to be obligated. There may be some reason why the Commonwealth just simply could not get the Bacon Labor government to perform. That might not surprise people, but there is nevertheless a Commonwealth responsibility here. I ask the minister, in defence of the contention that the regional forest agreement is worth the paper it is written on, if she can tell us why this series of defaults occurred in the first 12 months of the regional forest agreement.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—I will put the questions separately, Senator Brown.11:12:007812Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Chair, I do not want to make your position invidious, but I will ask the rhetorical question.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You cannot make my position invidious.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No. Nor would I dare trespass into that territory. But I ask the rhetorical question: can anybody in the chair ever have seen such a failure to respond by a minister or a representative of the minister on such an important matter? This is an extremely important matter, and we have a hapless government representative who skirted around some forests in Tasmania on a visit or two down there but simply did not get into the matter. She has been handed the responsibility for one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this parliament as far as the nation's environment is concerned, and she has been put in the position of defending the indefensible.None of the parliamentary secretary's senior colleagues have had the gumption to take the chair because, as I said earlier, the regional forest agreements themselves are built on a lie about protecting the forest environment when they are not. That is why they are going to fail. That is why they will not stand up. The Senate committee heard that from many witnesses—that signing on the dotted line a death warrant for the forests of Australia is simply not going to mean that that sentence will be carried out. Sure, there will be lots of damage, but people are not accepting it in Western Australia—and they are not accepting it in Tasmania, I can tell you.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—They are accepting it in Tasmania.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Sherry just intervened and said they are accepting it.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—You do not accept it. The majority of the community accept it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Sherry has been wrong in the past and he is going to be shown to be wrong again. He might accept non-Tasmanian entities ruling over this resource. He might accept the destruction of a job creating Tasmanian asset, but the people of Tasmania will not. If he has a constructive input—Senator Sherry interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will not get into grandstanding in this place, as you want to, Senator Sherry, because that is a diversion, and you might lose that argument as well.If Senator Sherry has a constructive component to bring to this debate, then he has the opportunity to do so. In fact what he is doing is sitting bolted to his seat, the same as the parliamentary secretary, because he has nothing worth while to add.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, I cannot make the parliamentary secretary or any minister of the government, nor any member of this chamber, participate in this debate or in any other debate. I have the responsibility for the conduct of the debate and it is as simple as that. I am sure you realise that.11:16:007812Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I will be relatively brief because I did make a contribution in the second reading debate. It should be pointed out to the Senate and to those participating in the debate that Senator Brown is following the fairly well- worn tactic of stringing the debate out as long as he can. Some questions he asks are legitimate; others are spurious and an attempt to waste time and grandstand. That is a well-worn path that Senator Brown has followed for the best part of 20 years in respect of forests, at least in Tasmania.Senator Brown used the word `lie' in reference to a number of comments that have been made in the debate so far. I do not take it that he was referring to me, but I think we need to analyse Senator Brown's use of that word. For example, he refers to firebombing and poisoning of forests after logging takes place. Senator Brown well knows that that is a gross misrepresentation of why the burning of areas that have been logged takes place. Senator Brown gives the impression that people move in and wilfully chop everything down, bring in the aeroplanes and bomb the face of the planet, then throw poison around willy-nilly, and that this is the face of forestry. But that is not true.When you log an area of eucalypt forest and you are cleaning up afterwards, as Senator Brown well knows, you have to burn the waste to ensure regeneration of the eucalypt forest. That occurs not just in areas that have been logged; it occurs regularly in nature. The very viability of a forest is threatened ecologically if fires do not occur over significant periods of time. It is part of the ecosystem of eucalypt forests. That is why burning of forests occurs after logging takes place. I have seen areas of forest in Tasmania where burning did not take place after logging. They are an absolute mess. You do not get any sort of balanced regrowth.What we are talking about with these RFAs is the identification of those areas that were put aside in reserves—world heritage and other areas—and that will never be logged. The RFA process is about identifying the areas that will be logged and those that will not be logged. That is the point of the RFAs—making sure that we have representative forests put aside that will never be touched. That is one of the central points of the RFA process. The RFA process does not open up every area of forest in Australia, particularly in Tasmania, to logging. That is simply not the case. Again, that is another gross misrepresentation by Senator Brown. He referred to 100-year-old trees. Yes, there are some 100-year-old trees that are logged in the area where logging is permitted, but there are many areas where, as Senator Brown knows, there are 100-year-old trees and 200-year-old trees that will never be touched.In reference to the Tasmanian RFA, as Senator Brown well knows, the RFA process had its genesis in the Salamanca agreement that the environment movement signed up to close to a decade ago. Like all of the processes that you become involved in with some sections of the environment movement, when you get to the end of the day the environment movement pulls out because it will not accept the logging of any native forests in Australia. That is a fundamental philosophical position that Senator Brown and I will always disagree on. Senator Brown argues consistently that there should be no logging of any native forests anywhere.If that were to be implemented in this country tomorrow, the consequences would be catastrophic for forest industries. At least in regard to Tasmania, of which I have some first-hand knowledge, in a state with 50 per cent of its land area forested, you can achieve a happy balance between the requirements of an ongoing sustainable forest industry and areas that should not be logged and that are appropriately put aside for world heritage, national parks and reserves. For that reason, I refute the claim of Senator Brown that by and large the community is not happy with the outcome in Tasmania.The community by and large is happy with the outcome in Tasmania. Senator Brown's constituency and community is not happy, but they will never be happy until we get to the position that they want—that not one tree is ever touched. That is an extreme position that Senator Brown represents.We have debated these issues in Tasmania, as Senator Brown knows, for the best part of the last 20 years. There have been at least 21 or 22 inquiries into forestry in Tasmania during that time. My hope is that the RFA process is the last such `inquiry'. I think that by and large the Tasmanian community are frankly sick to death of the ongoing debate about trees and forests and are generally satisfied with what has occurred in respect to the RFA. That is an overwhelming sentiment amongst the people that I represent. I would remind Senator Brown that at a federal level the Labor Party in Tasmania represents well over 50 per cent of the vote. It holds state government in its own right. The level of support for the Greens in Tasmania has started to decline, and I think that is a good thing. Senator Brown well knows my views about that. I just make those comments.Senator Brown, as I said earlier, is fond of using extremely extravagant language, without explaining the true facts. He uses very emotive language, and I understand that is often done in politics. But when he starts saying people are lying and allegedly misleading this place, Senator Brown in some of his comments at least—his extravagant use of language—is grossly misleading. I would not use the word `lying'. But he is grossly misleading. As I think my colleague and the parliamentary secretary pointed out, these issues have been debated up hill and down dale—up every tree in Tasmania. There is not a square inch of ground in Tasmania that has not been studied time and time again over the last two decades. That is why, Senator Brown, there is no reason to be reconsidering the entire Tasmanian RFA process.What is interesting about the outcome in Tasmania, at least, is that it shows that in almost every area of representative forest type well in excess of the 15 per cent criteria has been met. What would be the position if, after the RFA process, people wanted those areas that were in excess of the 15 per cent criteria reopened for logging? But no-one would suggest that. I certainly would not. In Tasmania we have 40 per cent of the state—about a third of the forest areas—in reserves, national parks and world heritage areas of various kinds. The Tasmanian community, after considerable public debate, angst and conflict, is relatively happy with that situation. Substantial areas of the remaining forest are available for logging on a sustainable basis and in an appropriate manner.My sincere hope is that those areas will continue to be logged in a sustainable manner, because forestry represents about 15 per cent of the state's economy. At the same time, the tourist industry has continued to grow. There has been a growing interest in ecotourism, which Senator Brown is very keen on and I think is appropriate. There has been no decline in ecotourism in Tasmania as a result of forestry. You can have the best of both worlds. I am convinced of that. You can have a good outcome for the environment. You can have a good outcome for those whose interests lie in the use of the forests on a sustainable basis.I will conclude on this point. Senator Brown continually makes the point that employment is declining in forest industries. Again, this is an example of Senator Brown's sweeping generalisations that are misleading. Yes, on the face of it, employment is going down in forest industries, with perhaps an exception in the furniture manufacturing and craft area. But that is because of technology and that is occurring in every manufacturing industry in the country. I think there would be very few exceptions. The conclusion Senator Brown then comes to is, `Well, it is not worth having any forest industry. It should end tomorrow because employment is declining in that industry.'If we argue the logic of that, Senator Brown, we would say that tomorrow you shut down the textile industry and the car manufacturing industry and every other manufacturing industry because in all of those industries employment is continuing to decline as well. There is no logical position there from Senator Brown. I accept that employment has declined, but that does not mean that you do not continue to have an industry that makes a very worthwhile contribution to the `strength' of the Tasmanian economy. If you were to remove 15 per cent of the Tasmanian economy in one hit, as Senator Brown would want, the unemployment rates, which at the moment are the highest in the nation, would double overnight. Senator Brown's conclusions on that logic are just absurd.I might say in passing—sorry, it is a long conclusion—that there would be significantly greater employment in the forest industries in Tasmania if the green movement had not opposed the Wesley Vale pulp and paper mill. I was living in Latrobe at the time when that debate occurred. I noticed that we, the Labor Party, copped a few brickbats for our approach on that. It is a complex story but we did lose an opportunity for what would have been, in my view, a very important contribution to the value adding of the woodchips that Senator Brown continually decries and criticises because the woodchips are exported. We could have had at least 50 per cent of the woodchips that are exported from Tasmania converted into pulp and paper in Tasmania. Senator Brown well knows that his movement was in substantial part responsible for that project not going ahead.We had been criticised for our approach when we were in government, but I also just point out for the sake of accuracy that we had a state election called by the then Liberal Premier, Robin Gray, who thought he was going to win an election on the issue. He ended up losing seats and being in opposition. So there was a whole cast of players involved in that little episode at that time, including the then state Liberal Party, the Premier, Mr Gray, and the now Senator Brown—I accept that the Labor Party bears some of the responsibility as well. I say `little episode' advisedly, because it was a tragic loss for our state. I hope that those comments shed a slightly more balanced light than Senator Brown's comments. (Time expired)11:31:007815Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Sherry at least got on to Wesley Vale, which I remember Prime Minister Hawke, his then leader, disclaiming because—for reasons which Senator Sherry has forgotten—it was going to spew 13 tonnes of organochlorines a day into Bass Strait as well as spread dioxins over the vegetable growing regions of Wesley Vale—with a negative impact on jobs and Tasmania's clean green image. The use of that dirty old technology would have had fallout right through the state.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Do you want the current operation shut down?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Sherry ought to know better than to bring that subject up. His record on the RFAs, I suggest, is going to be as good as his record on East Timor. He is going to be found to be wrong and he is going to be shown to have had an old line of thinking which is not adequate to the aspirations of people who are on the ground and are affected by what we do in this parliament.Senator Sherry began his little homily in defence of the government on the basis that there was something wrong with calling the use of `ecologically sustainable' in RFAs a lie. Well, I stand by it. If Senator Sherry can show how clear-felling of forests with dropping of incendiaries for whatever reason—and he has a contorted view of that—and then putting in 1080 poisoning is ecologically sustainable, I would like him to get to his feet and say how. Senator Troeth ultimately ended up glued to her seat over that yesterday, because there is no way you can explain that. It is the fundamental lie behind the RFAs. But now let me make space for Senator Sherry to get up and say that that process is ecologically sustainable.11:33:007815Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I will take up the challenge only very briefly. As I have said on a number of occasions in this place, Senator Brown well knows the reason you burn forests after you have clear-felled them: you have to regenerate the eucalyptus forest and, if you do not, you end up with a massive mess. I am not going to make any further contribution. I suspect I am going to be a bit like Senator Troeth. The objective here by Senator Brown is to filibuster.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You are exactly the same as Senator Troeth.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—No, you know my position, Senator Brown, on this issue.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—It's a woodchipper's position.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It is not a woodchipper's position. Senator Brown is provoking me. Sorry, Chair. I just want to make this clear about the RFA process. The RFA process means that you identify the areas you log and do not log. I do not know whether Senator Brown knows this or not—I am sure he does: when you log an area of forest you hope to have an outcome with the highest value adding of that timber for sawlog purposes. That is the outcome you aim at. You will always have considerable waste left over. That is the principle on which it should operate. That waste can either be burned on the ground or it can be used for woodchipping downstream for pulp and paper manufacturing. That is why you produce woodchips. I am well aware too, Senator Brown, that there are areas of eucalypt grown exclusively for woodchips, particularly plantations, but that is another debate.This has been a lengthy debate. Senator Brown knows the tactics that can be followed in this place. I do not intend to make any further contribution. I made a couple of contributions on this matter in the second reading debate. Senator Brown and I know each other's position. I have a healthy respect for Senator Brown as a political operator and for his position. I just do not agree with his position. We have a fundamental difference of principle, and I suspect we always will. I do not intend to engage in what Senator Brown is attempting, which is going to be a filibuster. That is your tactic, Senator Brown. That is a legitimate parliamentary tactic, but do not get up and accuse the parliamentary secretary, me or my colleague Senator Forshaw of failing to answer questions, when that is your tactic. We know what your tactic is, Senator Brown. I think there has been a very reasoned debate so far. I think every attempt has been made to answer questions legitimately from both sides. I will be resisting further temptations to engage with you in that tactic.11:36:007816Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—And so the glue applies to Senator Sherry's seat, because there is a simple incapacity to do away with the underlying lie of the regional forest agreements that they lead to ecologically sustainable logging. Senator Sherry's colleague Deputy Premier Paul Lennon uses that terminology all over the place, but it still does not get away from the fact that in the RFAs the use of the term `ecologically sustainable' is a lie, because it is ecologically destructive to go into forests and to cut down, burn and poison ecosystems. If there were only some honesty in this debate from the woodchip industry right through to its supporters in parliament, we would have that term taken out because it is a lie. When you start to engage in supporting fallacious terminology like that, you undermine the whole validity of the case.So Senator Sherry joins Senator Troeth in being totally unable to explain how you could use that terminology. Of course, he has now taken the time-honoured defence of silence—which I think should be accorded to anybody lest they self-incriminate. I accept that. A legitimate debating tactic, too, is to go silent when you know that you are caught out. I commend this motion to the house.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that amendment No. 3 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that amendments Nos 2 and 7 on sheet 1265 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.11:42:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)9Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. *Brown, B. Greig, B. A.Lees, M. H. Murray, A.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.48Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.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.Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Hill, R. M. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Minchin, N. H.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F.Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.11:47:007817Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—As opposition amendment No. 3 is identical to Greens amendment No. 3, which has previously been carried, I do not need to move that, I understand. I move opposition amendment No. 7:(7) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4A Public scrutiny of draft RFAs (1) Within 21 days of receiving agreement from a State or Territory to the text of a draft RFA, the Minister, after consulting with the Minister for the Environment, must publish in the Gazette : (a) a statement as to whether the draft RFA is in accordance with this Act; and (b) a notice of the Minister's intention to enter into the RFA; and (c) a copy of the draft RFA.4B Parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs(1) The Minister must not enter into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with this section.(2) Before entering into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth, the Minister must cause a copy of the proposed RFA to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.(3) Either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the proposed RFA has been tabled, may, under motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA.(4) Where: (a) a notice referred to in subsection (3) is given with respect to a proposed RFA; and (b) at the expiration of the period during which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed: (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the relevant motion has not been called on; or (ii) the relevant motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of; the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of.(5) If: (a) either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); or (b) the proposed RFA is deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister must not enter into the proposed RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth except in accordance with subsection (7).(6): (a) neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with subsection (3); and (b) the proposed RFA is not deemed to have been disapproved of under subsection (4); the Minister may enter into the RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth on or after the day immediately following the last day on which a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA could have been passed.(7) If an RFA has been disapproved of under subsection (3) or (4), the Minister may resubmit the RFA under subsection (2) provided that a period of not less than 15 sitting days has elapsed since the day on which: (a) a resolution disapproving of the RFA was passed by a House of the Parliament; or (b) the RFA was deemed to have been disapproved of.(8) An RFA which is resubmitted under subsection (7) may be resubmitted in an amended form.Let me indicate that this is a substantial amendment to the legislation and, we hope, one that will be carried by the Senate—we hope one that will be supported particularly by the Greens, the Democrats and Senator Harradine.We have heard the outrageous comments of the minister in response to this proposal. I take this opportunity to put on the record precisely what is involved so that everyone understands. What we are proposing is a system of public scrutiny and parliamentary scrutiny of draft RFAs. We see this as important because ultimately what this government is doing is giving legislative effect to regional forest agreements and all that flows from those agreements for at least the next 20 years. There is a substantial amount of Commonwealth funding and taxpayer funding underwriting the RFA process. That funding is in excess of $100 million, not counting additional structural adjustment funding. For that reason alone we would submit that it is important for parliament to have some opportunity to at least scrutinise the content of a regional forest agreement negotiated between a state government and the Commonwealth government prior to its being signed off by the relevant Commonwealth minister.I note in passing that yesterday the Joint Public Works Committee of the parliament handed down a report in regard to another matter, the proposed new reactor at Lucas Heights. I have made my views known about that and it is not relevant to this debate, except that the reason the Public Works Committee actually came to report upon the proposal was that there is a substantial amount of taxpayer funding involved in it. It is a project that will run to a couple of hundred million dollars in construction and will operate for the next 40-odd years. Indeed, it is a requirement that any substantial government expenditure on projects of such a nature, infrastructure projects et cetera, must be considered by the Public Works Committee.I think the principle is one that can equally be applied in this case. That is, where you have a system whereby the states and the Commonwealth will be negotiating regional forest agreements that will operate for up to 20 years and will involve a substantial allocation of Commonwealth taxpayer funds, at some point in time the parliament should get an opportunity to at least oversight those agreements. The public scrutiny stage of the process is outlined in amendment No. 7, in proposed clause 4A. That proposed clause reads as follows:(1) Within 21 days of receiving agreement from a State or Territory to the text of a draft RFA, the Minister, after consulting with the Minister for the Environment, must publish in the Gazette :(a) a statement as to whether the draft RFA is in accordance with this Act; and(B) a notice of the Minister's intention to enter into the RFA; and(c) a copy of the draft RFA.That is straightforward. That is a requirement on the minister after a draft RFA has been prepared after that lengthy process of Commonwealth and state assessment and negotiations involving all the relevant parties. It is appropriate, we would submit, that the text of that draft RFA be published in the Gazette so it is available for public scrutiny. The benefit of course is this: by having a requirement on the minister to make a statement as to whether the draft RFA is in accordance with the act or not, that establishes the foundations upon which the draft RFA can be scrutinised by the public and by interested stakeholders to assess the position enunciated by the minister.The next part of the process is the parliamentary scrutiny. I will not read the entire new clause 4B because it is lengthy, but I will summarise it as follows. Firstly, the process is that, before entering into an RFA, the draft text of which of course has been previously published in the Gazette, the minister must cause a copy of that proposed RFA to be tabled in each house of parliament. Secondly, within 15 sitting days after the proposed RFA has been tabled, each house may, upon motion made with notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA.So that clause sets up a scheme whereby the draft RFA is laid on the table and then there are 15 sitting days for the parliament to pass a resolution disapproving of the proposed RFA. That is a tight timetable. It is deliberately so because we do not want to see a situation where there is a delay from spurious objection to an RFA that meets all the criteria, has been the subject of ongoing public scrutiny, has been the subject of negotiation over some period of time and has been in the public arena and in the parliamentary arena. So there is a heavy onus upon the parliament, if it is to disapprove of the RFA, to consider it quickly and effectively.Of course, situations have arisen, particularly in Western Australia, where there has been a lot of public debate and parliamentary debate about whether or not an RFA appropriately meets the criteria. But if—as we hope—the RFAs do meet the criteria in the future, they would lie on the table and a motion would not necessarily have to be moved.It is of course the intention of the whole process that the outcomes will be in accordance with the requirements of the national forest policy statement and so on. But at least, by having this, if there is a problem with the RFA—it does not meet the criteria—there is a mechanism available for a member of the House of Representatives or a senator to give notice of a disapproval motion and then have that debated. That then ensures that the issues would be raised and that the problems that would need to be identified can be identified within parliament, and parliament can have a vote on them.Further procedures are laid out in this amendment which relate to an RFA being disapproved of by either house of parliament. The RFA may be resubmitted provided that a period of not less than 15 sitting days has elapsed since the day upon which it was disapproved. Furthermore, it may be resubmitted in an amended form.I want to quickly make some points in respect of some of the erroneous comments that have been made about this, and no doubt I will have a further opportunity after we hear from the government. It has been suggested that the process that we are putting forward is contrary to the original national forest policy statement and the whole basis of the RFA process. That is nonsense. At no stage in that process did the Commonwealth ever abrogate its responsibility—and certainly at no stage did the parliament ever abrogate its responsibility—for the constitutional aspects that it can cover in respect of Australia's forests and forest industry.That would indeed have been quite the wrong thing to have happened. Some argue that the RFA process really means that the Commonwealth is vacating the field because it is supposedly all too difficult and too much of a hot political issue. They say that the Commonwealth has handed this issue back to the states who may happen to own the resource or have management of the resource—that is, the state forests—and that therefore the whole issue should be resolved at that level. Those who argue that are wrong.Certainly there is still a major responsibility for the federal government and the federal parliament to ensure that the outcomes of the regional forest agreement process are proper and appropriate. We make no apology for that. If anything has demonstrated the need for such a process to be available for parliamentary scrutiny, it is the debacle that has gone on in Western Australia in recent times, where an agreement was negotiated after a lengthy period of time, signed off and then abrogated by the state government within a matter of a couple of weeks. We now have this debacle between the Commonwealth minister and the state government over just what is a legally binding agreement and what is not.I am aware that there are other arguments and criticisms of our proposal. It has been suggested that, somehow, it will frustrate the entire RFA process. That is rubbish. Our proposal has been on the table and known to the state governments, the industry and all the players for quite some time now, ever since the Senate committee handed down its report early this year. Just in the last couple of days we have seen further RFAs negotiated and signed off in Victoria and New South Wales. Negotiations are continuing in New South Wales and Queensland to complete the process, hopefully before the end of this year. That is a vast improvement on the minister's record up until a month or so ago. It is quite clear that the process will continue and that our amendments will not frustrate that process. (Time expired)12:02:007819Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—There are some comments I wish to make on this amendment, but before that I wish to place on record some answers to questions put to me by Senator Brown earlier with regard to Quamby Bluff in Tasmania. In relation to forestry operations at Quamby Bluff outside the CAR reserve system, I am advised that the operations are being conducted in accordance with the forest management plan for the Mersey forest district, which was prepared by Forestry Tasmania in accordance with this normal public consultation process. I understand that 38 public submissions were received on the draft plan, of which 22 were supportive and 16 were opposed in full or in part, and that all these submissions were taken into account in the development of the final plan. I am having further inquiries made in relation to the specific matter raised by Senator Brown.I would now like to turn to the opposition amendment we are debating and, first of all, comment on the public scrutiny element of this amendment. There does not seem to be any point to this proposed amendment, because before the Commonwealth agrees to enter into any RFA, it is required to meet all its obligations under all Commonwealth legislation. As such, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage is always closely involved in the RFA process. The requirement to consult with the minister for the environment is therefore superfluous.While the involvement of all stakeholders is encouraged during the RFA process itself and during subsequent periodic reviews of its operation, at the end of the day the agreement is between the Commonwealth and the relevant state. Further, given the extensive public consultation that has taken place under all RFA deliberations, there is no reason to suggest that notification of the Commonwealth's intention to enter into an RFA nor the publishing of the draft RFA will serve any purpose.Turning to the parliamentary scrutiny provisions of this amendment, the time delays inherent in this proposal would jeopardise the finalisation of the RFAs by 31 December 1999. This raises the real prospect of the prohibition of exports of hardwood woodchips sourced from native forests in non-RFA regions after that date. It must be remembered that, for any agreement to gain the benefits of the RFA bill as it now stands, the comprehen sive and stringent definition of `regional forest agreement' contained in clause 3 of the bill must be met in full. This means that an RFA must have regard to assessments made of the environmental, endangered species, national estate, world heritage, indigenous heritage, economic and social values; it must provide for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system; it must provide for the ecologically sustainable management of the region's forested areas; and it must make clear that it is a regional forest agreement for the purpose of providing long-term stability of forests and forest industries.This comprehensive definition ensures that the parliament can be satisfied about the consistent nature and quality of regional forest agreements now and into the future. Further, if there is a concern that RFA requirements are not being complied with, it is open to parliament to amend or repeal the bill. This requires both houses to act, not just one house, as in the case of disapproval. It is also interesting that the opposition, at least, appears to be quite happy with the RFAs already signed, with the possible exception of the Western Australian RFA. However, it is these same RFAs that have been subject to the most criticism in submissions made to the Senate legislation review committee. The government obviously does not accept the bulk of such criticism, but it raises the question of how the parliament will be better able to determine whether an RFA is acceptable or not. The RFA process itself involves both comprehensive scientific assessment and comprehensive stakeholder engagement. On what basis will a house of parliament be better placed to determine whether an RFA is appropriate or not?Even assuming that this period is 15 sitting days, as provided for in relation to consideration of disallowance motions, uncertainty about an RFA could drag on for months. Further, if the RFA is disapproved, there is no requirement under the proposed amendment for the disapproving house to specify what aspects of the RFA are not acceptable. It is either all or nothing. So one could envisage extensive rounds of submission and resubmission of a draft RFA without any positive resolution. These proposed amendments are a recipe for uncertainty. All of these issues raise grave concerns about the practicality of the proposed amendments. It will produce yet another process that has no obvious merit.Minister Tuckey has already agreed to the recommendations of the majority report that each RFA be tabled in parliament after it is signed and that the first five annual reports of the operations of RFAs be tabled in parliament. This should ensure adequate scrutiny by parliament. It must also be remembered that the Commonwealth enters into RFAs under its executive powers, not under legislation. While the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 supports RFAs, it is not the source of Commonwealth powers to enter into them.RFAs are negotiated agreements between two government parties and are not similar to other instances where instruments may be disallowable. These include regulations made under Commonwealth legislation and provision under the Native Title Act 1993 for possible disallowance of the Commonwealth minister's determination that an alternative scheme in complementary state or territory legislation complies with criteria set out in the native title act. Disallowance or disapproval would normally be applied to an instrument which is one-sided—that is, a regulation or a determination—and which is intended to have the force of law, such as a regulation, rather than to a Commonwealth-State agreement which has two or more parties, and that is what the RFA is.While the process of developing RFAs provides for stakeholder participation, including consultation on a publicly released options or directions report, this does not mean that all major community interests will accept a particular negotiated RFA outcome. Provision for disapproval would therefore be likely to reopen and provide a national focus on a regional agreement that is already negotiated and agreed. This will remove the certainty that is the key incentive for governments to participate in the complex RFA process, and thus it will undermine it.Provision for disapproval is likely to lead to significant differences between existing and future RFAs or denial of access to an RFA. This will undermine what we believe is a nationally consistent approach to implementing the national forest policy statement agreed by the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments. Therefore, the government will not be supporting this amendment.12:10:007821Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments (10) and (11) on sheet 1514:(10) subclause 4A(1), omit "consulting with", substitute "obtaining the agreement of".(11) subclause 4B(7), omit "15 sitting days", substitute "30 days".These amendments seek to amend opposition amendment No. 7 on sheet 1290. Democrat amendment (10) is designed to ensure that we obtain the agreement of the environment minister before gazettal rather than just having to consult with the environment minister, which is what the ALP seeks with their amendment.Democrat amendment (11) seeks to omit the 15-day minimum time period between re-presenting an RFA to either house after it has been rejected. We believe strongly that there should be a minimum six-month time period for government to go back and renegotiate an RFA agreement if either house of the Commonwealth parliament rejects it. We are concerned that, with such little time as 15 days, the government will keep thrusting an unchanged RFA back before the Senate and dare us to be obstructionist on it.We have already seen how the government will behave on this, with both Senator Hill and Minister Tuckey saying that they will refuse to accept any amendments to the RFA legislation, and that is before they have even seen what is on offer. That is not good or responsible government; that is simply bare-chested arrogance, and that is what we will see from them on this if an RFA is rejected by the Senate. There should be a minimum six-month cooling off period so that government can work with state governments and stakeholders in respect of any unacceptable elements of an RFA. That is what we seek with these amendments.12:12:007821Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I have some questions for the parliamentary secretary. You have said, as I under stand it, that this is an agreement between two governments and that it is very much an executive function rather than a legislative function or a function of parliament. Bearing in mind the case of the New South Wales Treasurer being ejected from parliament and the High Court having some things to say about it, what matters are outside the purview of parliament if parliament wants to have a say about them?Secondly, you say uncertainty is a problem in this area. In what area where a house has the ability to disallow a regulation would there be a lack of uncertainty? In other words, isn't any process by which you have a disallowance motion available a process that contains uncertainty? Therefore, the mere fact of uncertainty hardly seems to be an issue. They are the two points I would like answered.12:14:007822Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Firstly, on Senator Cooney's first question, parliament has the right to seek information or to seek any document that it wishes, but that is different from the ability to disallow something.12:15:007822Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—One of the problems in the process as it now stands is that what is contemplated by this scheme is that there will be agreements between the state and the Commonwealth which will last over a particular period of time—20 years. If an agreement is made now, the effect of it will be to stop future governments introducing aspects that they might want. As is usually the case when a government is elected, it has the majority in the House of Representatives but no majority in the Senate, yet it may want to pursue a particular policy in an agreement different to that implemented by a previous government. The effect of this legislation is to bar a future government from pursuing its particular intention at that time, which is a very serious issue. Because of that, I think there is a need for at least some parliamentary input—Senate or the House of Representatives—at the time that these agreements are made.When the Labor Party was in power it got this going, so I am not putting this on the basis that you are doing the wrong thing. We agree with the idea of RFAs. But on an issue such as forests—their conservation, their exploitation and the export and sale of their products—parliament ought have a say at the time a particular agreement is made, given that it is going to decide policy for 20 years into the future and that, because of the realities of the Senate, it will stop future governments changing that policy. These agreements will be made by governments that are there at the time; thus deciding policy in a way which is a little peculiar.12:18:007822Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—Senator Cooney, in answer to your question, the government of the day can renegotiate the agreement. I think I also mentioned in my earlier remarks that parliament—that is, the two houses of parliament—can amend or repeal the legislation if that is the will of the parliament as demonstrated at the time.12:19:007822Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—It cannot repeal the legislation if it has control of only the House of Representatives. I have heard phrases such as the `people's mandate' and `the government has a mandate', and there has been quite a deal of stress that the government cannot get things through the Senate as it ought. So to say that future governments can change the policy is, I think, not to look at what the real situation is.I would have thought the very least that a responsible parliament could do would be to examine each agreement as it goes through and say that, doing the best we can now, we think this is an agreement that ought to go forward or not. Is that not a preferable situation to one where an agreement goes off for many years without parliament ever having had a look at it?12:20:007822Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I will end on this point because I know another matter is coming before the Senate. Very briefly, the obverse could well be true, Sena tor Cooney. What guarantee would there be that, given future political circumstances, it could be changed anyway? I understand the point you are making, but to my own mind there is sufficient flexibility in the arrangements contained in the bill and sufficient parliamentary scrutiny for those concerns to be catered for.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The question is that amendments Nos 10 and 11 moved by Senator Greig to opposition amendment No. 7 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendment No. 7 moved by Senator Forshaw be agreed to.12:26:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)33Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murray, A.O'Brien, K. W. K. *Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.31Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Harris, L. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.Bourne, V. Heffernan, W.Denman, K. J. Campbell, I. G.Evans, C. V. Payne, M. A.Faulkner, J. P. Macdonald, I.Lundy, K. Herron, J.Murphy, S. M. Parer, W. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to:That the committee report progress and seek leave to sit again.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I ask if the Leader of the Senate can tell us why he has moved that motion.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—This motion is not subject to debate.12:31:007823Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I move:That the committee have leave to sit again at a later hour today.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Might I inquire as to why this motion has been moved? Would the minister mind explaining it to the chamber?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—The government is seeking to have debated a motion on reconciliation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business7823782312:32:007823Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I move:That consideration of government business orders of the day nos 4 to 10 and 13 not be proceeded with from 12.45 pm till 2.00 pm today.I might simply say for the benefit of honourable senators that this will allow those who wish to participate in the debate on the motion of reconciliation an opportunity to do so during that period of time in lieu of what was proposed, that is, non-controversial legislation.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—If I could take a point of order, Madam President, I ask if the motion the minister has just referred to is available for senators. Has it been circulated?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—To my knowledge it has not been circulated yet, Senator.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I find it difficult to know how we will debate something that we have not seen.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The motion will be circulated when the minister moves it, which he will do at the beginning of his speech, I imagine.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I make the point that it would be proper process, if we are going to have an immediate debate on something as important as reconciliation, for us to have the motion available.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The proper process will be to circulate it when the minister has the call and is able to move the motion.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I do not agree with that opinion.Miscellaneous782412:34:007824Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—by leave—On behalf of the government parties, and also Senator Ridgeway and the Australian Democrats, I move:That the Senate:(a) reaffirms its whole-hearted commitment to the cause of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians as an important national priority for all Australians;(b) recognising the achievements of the Australian nation, commits to work together to strengthen the bonds that unite us, to respect and appreciate our differences, and to build a fair and prosperous future in which we can all share;(c) reaffirms the central importance of practical measures leading to practical results that address the profound economic and social disadvantage which continues to be experienced by many indigenous Australians;(d) recognises the importance of understanding the shared history of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and the need to acknowledge openly the wrongs and injustices of Australia's past; (e) acknowledges that the mistreatment of many indigenous Australians over a significant period represents the most blemished chapter in our national history;(f) expresses its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices; and(g) believes that we, having achieved so much as a nation, can now move forward together for the benefit of all Australians.I am pleased to move this motion on behalf of the Liberal Party and the National Party and jointly with the Australian Democrats. I have to say that I am disappointed that the Australian Labor Party was not prepared to join in co-sponsoring the motion.If the late Neville Bonner were here today, he would obviously be supporting this motion. When he gave us advice, as he so often did, on indigenous matters, he used to say that he believed we were listening but often felt that we did not hear. The message that he used to seek to give us was that you cannot address the disadvantages of Aboriginal people, which are acknowledged by all, without understanding and recognising the causes of those disadvantages; in other words, without understanding the effects of loss of land, loss of culture, loss of language and loss of identity.This motion seeks to take a step along what we concede to be a long and difficult path of true reconciliation—to recognise, through this form, that Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders have suffered in this way and that we need as a people to understand the effects and consequences of that suffering and to genuinely express regret for it if we are going to effectively address the contemporary disadvantages from which indigenous peoples still suffer. This government recognises that fact and hopes, as I said, that this motion is a step along that path.As you know, Madam President, we have sought as a government to place greater emphasis upon the practical ways in which we can address the disadvantages that are so well known. We put great emphasis on issues of Aboriginal housing, health, education and jobs. I think there have been some successes, but we recognise by this motion that it cannot be done without linking it to the past and to the causes of those disadvantages. We hope that this recognition today is therefore seen and accepted by Aboriginal people as a genuine attempt to be able to move on while recognising the causes of the disadvantage. In other words, it is an attempt to build respect. It is a statement of respect out of what I hope is now a better understanding of the real causes of Aboriginal disadvantage.I am conscious of the fact that there are many senators who want to associate themselves with this statement today and, therefore, I should speak briefly. However, I do want to say—and previously I said it deliberately—that I see this as a step along the road. It is not as though reconciliation is starting today. There have been individual Australians and communities within Australia who have been constructively contributing to reconciliation for a long period of time. I think we should recognise and appreciate those who have so tried for so long. To mention Neville Bonner is to give just one example of such an Australian.There have been good stories in the past. Perhaps not often enough do we recall the good stories; we tend to dwell upon the failures and the disappointments. But we are all part of this community. It is a community that is enriched by Aboriginal culture and we need, as I said, to respect that as a step along this road of reconciliation.I want to pay particular credit today to the Prime Minister, who has been prepared to show leadership in this area with this motion and also to acknowledge with thanks the work of Senator Ridgeway. It is somewhat symbolic to think of a negotiation of a set of words between such a senior politician as the Prime Minister and a new politician in this place, between an indigenous Australian and a non-indigenous Australian. Perhaps the symbolism of that will help us along the path of reconciliation as well.Lastly, I want to pay tribute to Senator Herron who is often, in this place anyway, not given the credit he deserves. He has worked diligently and effectively within Aboriginal communities to advance their interests in the constructive and practical ways which have been the emphasis of this government, areas such as health, education, housing and jobs. It is unfortunate that this resolution has been called on on a day when Senator Herron is not in the chamber because I know he would have wanted the opportunity to speak to and to associate himself with this motion.I commend the motion to the Senate. I hope in the end it gets the unanimous support of the Senate.12:43:007825Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—This motion is, tragically, a second-best motion. That is a sad thing to have to admit. When the stolen generations report was released in May 1997, there was drafted, and the Senate eventually passed, a resolution that provided exactly what was required—a proper apology. Most state parliaments followed suit with not a formal expression of regret but an apology that was heartfelt and unreserved—except one. That is an interesting story in itself. In Queensland, the National Party was in power and Rob Borbidge took exception to a decent apology. So the Nationals moved one of their own. It said:I move that the Parliament of Queensland, on behalf of the people of Queensland, expresses its sincere regret for the personal hurt suffered by those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who, in the past, were unjustifiably removed from their families.That was the Borbidge government's response. I think Senator Ridgeway last night called it `by far the worst' of the states' responses. But that is the response that we have here, that this Senate:expresses its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices;At the time of the Borbidge motion, Peter Beattie, as opposition leader, moved an amendment which contained a decent apology. He moved:That this House:(1) apologises to the Aboriginal people on behalf of all Queenslanders for the past policies under which Aboriginal children were forcibly separated from their families and expresses deep sorrow and regret at the hurt and distress that this caused . . . Decency came to Queensland last year. Peter Beattie as Premier was able to move his amendment. `Regret' moved to `unreserved apology', and deep sorrow about Queensland's past treatment of Aborigines was expressed on behalf of the people of Queensland. So we move our amendment today. I move:Omit paragraph (f), substitute:(f) unreservedly apologises to indigenous Australians for the injustice they have suffered, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to suffer as a consequence of that injustice;(fa) calls for the establishment of appropriate processes to provide justice and restitution to members of the stolen generation through consultation, conciliation and negotiation rather than requiring indigenous Australians to engage in adversarial litigation in which they are forced to relive the pain and trauma of their past suffering;We move that with the express purpose of one day seeing it stand in the Hansard as a government motion. We move it because the motion we have now before the chamber is second best.There has been much said about who supports this motion among the Aboriginal community. But I think it is fair to say that not one of the people in the Aboriginal community who support this motion would not prefer a better one. I can understand why people have supported second best when the alternative is nothing at all. But we would do well to remember why that was the only choice. The whole point of the government motion is to settle the issue—and this does not. That is the whole point: it is to settle the issue. The motion we have before us does not settle the issue. It is not about the thousands of members of the stolen generations; it is about one person—the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. The tragedy of this is that what should be a matter of national healing—the national psychology—has become a matter of a Prime Minister saving face and keeping his back covered. That is the saddest aspect of this second-best motion.Because the semantics have shifted and weakened the intent that millions of Australians wish for, the apology has slipped into the unedifying ruck of politics. It has become a newsprint plaything, part of the endless `who's up, who's down; who's in, who's out; who's negotiating, who isn't negotiating'. That is not the stuff—and this is not the stuff—of national psychology or national honour. There is no honour in the motion. And it will cost us as a nation.This year's budget papers state that there are 2,200 claims by members of the stolen generations under way. They say the Commonwealth could potentially be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. The Commonwealth has already spent several millions of dollars fighting the first of the stolen generations' litigants in the Northern Territory. It has created pain, anger and mistrust in the process. We all know that the greatest cost to the taxpayer will be incurred if the stolen generations' claims are all litigated individually. The only way to deal with this is through a transparent, honest process beginning with a decent apology and building goodwill into the compensation process. This compensation will come anyway. Why can it not be done in a way which promotes healing rather than anger and, incidentally, costs the Commonwealth less? I commend to the Senate the amendment that I have moved on behalf of the opposition. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Senate to give its sentiments strong endorsement today.12:52:007826Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6NSWAD00—I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats and as the co-sponsor of the motion by the Hon. Senator Robert Hill. I note the matters that have been put by Senator John Faulkner, although I cannot support what it is that has been expressed. I want to first say that I welcome the motion as presented by Senator Hill. It is a motion that so many Australians, I believe, have waited for patiently and with the certainty that it would come before the Australian parliament. In my heart, I thought that this day may have come much later than this, and I would like to give credit to the government for the journey that it has taken in a short period of time.I do not want to revisit many of the things that I had spoken about in my first speech last night, but I do repeat the need for consenting reconciliation. I think that these words hold particular meaning today, because it is so crucial that this motion is wholeheartedly supported and endorsed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have agonised over this for quite some time and there has been no pleasure in that. A person that I took personal counsel and advice from on this issue, a member of the stolen generations and an indigenous leader who is highly respected, Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue, said this morning that this motion is really about healing for the stolen generations and for the healing of the nation. It has nothing to do with politics. It has a far deeper and greater meaning.' So, like Dr O'Donoghue, I am appealing for a multipartisan approach from the Senate.In considering the motion it is important to point out that it has been arrived at through consultation and discussions with other indigenous leaders—and I accept that there may be other views expressed by others. I want to talk about some of the comments that these people have made. This morning I received comments from the ATSIC chairman, Gatjil Djerrkura. He asked me to present his message about his views on this motion:I have read the possible draft motion and discussed this matter with Senator Ridgeway.I have made it clear that first and foremost the words and the sentiments of the proposed motion of the national parliament must be acceptable to those who suffered, and who continue to suffer as a result of past practices and policies.He said:I believe the proposed motion moves the debate on a national apology along and I believe those involved should be acknowledged for their efforts in this regard.But I repeat. . . the form of words finally settled upon by the parliament must be acceptable to members of the stolen generations.It must be acknowledged that the mistreatment of many indigenous Australians over a significant period of time represents the most blemished chapter in our national history.He said:This has been accepted in all state parliaments.It should now be recognised by our national parliament.He also went on to say:This is not a small matter for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It should not be a small matter for the national parliament.He says he will be watching the progress of this debate closely and consulting with his fellow commissioners and other indigenous leaders as this unfolds. I also spoke to Evelyn Scott, the Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Her comments were:. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation welcomes this motion with an open heart and open arms.. This is a great day for reconciliation in our country.. This motion reflects the broad-ranging aims of reconciliation that the Council has been striving to get across to the nation.. If adopted by parliament, these words will impart tremendous new momentum to the reconciliation process.. I am confident that all Australians can now move forward together to make reconciliation a reality in the everyday life of our communities, workplaces, organisations and institutions, as outlined in the Council's Draft Document for Reconciliation currently being discussed across the nation.Again, I return to comments by Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue. She said, before I came into this chamber, `I believe the coalition has come a long way in relation to the stolen generations.' She said, `I am on my own journey of healing and I believe the Prime Minister has embarked on a similar one. The matter is really about healing for the stolen generations and healing for the nation. It has nothing to do with politics. It has a far deeper and greater meaning. `And she appeals for a multipartisan approach from the Australian parliament.For my own views in relation to this matter, as much as I accept what Senator John Faulkner has said, one of the points I made in my first speech last night was that one of the greatest obstacles to reconciliation in this country has always been that of fear. I took a leaf out of the book of a person I respect immensely who is known the world over: President Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa. He made the point many years ago that, in order to begin to deal with their truth and reconciliation in South Africa, they needed to remove white fear. Whilst we may not agree with the words that are presented and whilst we may not agree with the sentiments that are expressed, I think we need to understand that this house does not just represent the political views of political parties; it represents the views of the nation. In that nation there is fear. It is a fear held by many people about what it is that indigenous people are striving to achieve. In terms of reconciliation and making it a national issue, rather than just an indigenous issue, it is as much about removing that fear in order to give comfort about what reconciliation means.I support the motion being put for that very reason. It is not second best, nor is it a compromise. It is an understanding of the fear that exists in the hearts and minds of many Australians. It is an understanding of the suffering, hurt and trauma experienced by so many indigenous people and their desire to have proper recognition. But this is not the end of that recognition; this is the beginning of a process. It should lead to reconciliation coming to every person in this nation as a stranger and, when it departs from us, it should leave us as friends.I make one final plea, and that is that the opposition supports the motion that is being put forward and that it rises above party political consideration. There must be an acknowledgment of the fear that is held by many other Australians and there must be an attempt to grapple with what reconciliation means. These are the small and easy steps in the process of reconciliation; the hard yards are yet to be done. We must move forward by removing the crucial obstacle that prevents us from getting to the document of reconciliation. I leave that before this Senate.13:01:007828Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—Madam President, the Senate is debating the motion of reconciliation today. Before I continue with my contribution, may I congratulate Senator Ridgeway not only for his first speech last night but also for his contribution just now. It came to me whilst I heard him speaking that he has been here three or four weeks and he has probably lifted the Aboriginal profile to its highest level of any time. He is to be congratulated.The National Party is committed to reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Our way is to do what is suggested in part (b) of the motion—that is, to build a fair and prosperous future in which we can all share. The National Party way is to encourage industry in rural and regional areas so that jobs are created for both black and white Australians, and Australians in the bush and in the cities can benefit from the wealth that comes from industry and exports. The National Party is also very concerned that there be practical measures to address disadvantages wherever they may be found in Australia. Unless indigenous health, education and employment standards improve, in another 50 years and at another time another group of senators may well be apologising for our lack of action today.The National Party represents the bush. It is in the bush that black and white Australians have really shared their lives with each other. They have grown up together, gone to the same schools, played on the same teams, worked side by side in the mills or on the council gangs and worked as ringers on the stations. We were reminded today by Senator Crane that he had sheared in teams with Aboriginals. Together we must take care to strengthen those bonds, because those Australians out there must live out what we in this chamber profess today. While there are blemishes on our national character, there are also people who strove against the injustices and did the right thing. This time it is important to be positive. There is a momentum in the country which demands this action today. However, I am mindful that we do not carry all Australians with us, and that is something to which we must pay attention, and something that Senator Ridgeway alluded to in his speech. This motion affirms Australia as an inclusive society, so it is important that we come to grips with continuing fears and uncertainties over native title claims. If we do not, we risk souring the seeds of reconciliation which we have sown today. Reconciliation is about all of us as a nation. It is not about asking rural land-holders to bear the burden alone. I acknowledge that there were mistreatments and injustices and that the hurt and trauma continue to affect lives today in our indigenous society.We like to take pride in our national heritage; what we have achieved, the kind of society that developed and where we hope to be in the future. But if we are honest, we must also look at the flip side of that pride and we just cannot blot it out. It is time that we as a nation acknowledge not only the pride but also the inequities that we inflicted on the first Australians. That is what we are doing today to try and set the record straight so that we can get on with the job of nation building. The National Party fervently hopes, as stated in paragraph (g) of the motion, that we can now move forward together for the benefit of all Australians.I hope that today is a new beginning for all of us, black and white, and that this is the time when we draw together in order to move forward as a nation. There are so many common goals in rural areas, and yet so many common disadvantages. We need to develop industry across the nation. We need the mines, dams, bridges and pipelines that make jobs and we need to build roads. We need more education and health services and also to underwrite small business in rural and remote areas for the benefit of all—black and white. Development will put back all the services the bush has lost. All families, black and white, will benefit. Aboriginal leaders are as concerned over the lack of infrastructure and employment and the resultant welfare dependency in the bush as white leaders.There exists a common bond but, whereas before the two were pushing away from each other, we signal today that there must be a drawing together. Let us hope that this expression today sets the stage for making that common bond highly visible, tangible and mutually beneficial.13:07:007829Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also rise to speak in this debate and, in doing so, express concern at what is before us this afternoon. There is no greater social issue facing this nation than reconciliation. There is no greater stain on our history than how we have treated our indigenous people, and there will be no greater hurdle to Australia's future than how we overcome the problems of indigenous Australians.This is a defining moment in Australia's history and, as a defining moment, it should reflect the values of magnanimity, inclusiveness, dignity, decency and honesty. We should as a nation, as a parliament, as a government and as a prime minister be big enough to address the stains of the past with the maturity that our present and future demand. Australians are surely big enough to not only be proud of our achievements but also acknowledge our failures and acknowledge such failures with honesty—to front the truth.As a defining moment in our history, this moment is not a moment for words of avoidance. This is not a moment for trickiness or sneakiness. This is not a moment for the politics, aspirations and values of the lowest common denominator. At this moment in our history, as we face the new millennium and as we face unprecedented international attention on Australia, we should be big enough to say one word, and that word is `sorry'. The words before us today are not the words that will put this issue to rest. The people behind those words know that full well.Let us acknowledge sincerely and honestly that, as Pamela Bone said in this morning's Melbourne Age:Aboriginal people bear all the signs of an underclass because since the beginning of white settlement they have been treated as an underclass.She quotes the Director of VicHealth, Dr Rob Moodie, who recently said:If people are told they're no good for long enough and it's repeated generation after generation, it profoundly affects them, no matter who they are. Discrimination causes ill health, there's no doubt about it. What we are doing once again today is something which I think continues that discrimination. We are denying the enormity of the injustice of the past, and we are continuing that discrimination because we are not prepared as a government and as a parliament to offer to indigenous Australians what we continue to offer and have offered to others on whom we perpetrate injustices, and that is an open and generous apology.Instead of a statement of principle, what we have today is an escape clause for a Prime Minister who will not confront the reality of the past and who has a blinkered view of the past. That is what we have got here today: the Prime Minister standing out against the tide of all decent Australians who want an apology. What we have from him today is an escape clause.We are defining our history. What we are talking about here is not something as the motion states. These are not actions of former generations that we are talking about, and I am sure Senator Ridgeway is amongst those who know that. These are not merely the actions of former generations; these are the actions of the Prime Minister's generation and even to some extent the generation that comes after him, my generation.Yesterday Senator Ridgeway told us that, of the apologies across the country and across the parliaments, the Queensland response was the worst. It is the Borbidge Queensland response which merely goes so far as to express regret. That is what made it the worst yesterday. Why is an apology which was the worst yesterday acceptable today to the national parliament? Why are the words that yesterday were acknowledged by Senator Ridgeway as reflecting the worst of apologies across the states acceptable to this parliament, which has a national responsibility for indigenous affairs? It has got to be asked, Senator Ridgeway: why are those words good enough, and hasn't the cause in some respects been sold short?I have before me a letter from Mick Dodson, a person who was quite critical of the whole awareness raising of this issue and the Bringing them home report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. He expresses bitter disappointment. He says:I guess the stolen generations will be bitterly disappointed by Mr Howard's incapacity. Paragraph (f) as presently drafted lets Mr Howard off the hook. It is undoubtedly the place where an unambiguous apology should go. Why is it so hard?That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Why was it so hard for the Prime Minister? Mick Dodson says:The proposed motion falls well short of the mark even on the fairest reading of it. The Indigenous individuals the recommendation speaks of are the Stolen Generations. They, their families and communities are invisible in this proposed motion.History will show that over the last three decades this is the only Australian Prime Minister who has not been prepared to say and do the decent thing.Let us place that on the record. All others who have held that high position in our nation and system of government have been big enough; they have had the magnanimity of leadership to do it. Gough Whitlam is on the record, Malcolm Fraser is on the record, Bob Hawke is on the record, Paul Keating is on the record, and even John Hewson is on the record. He did not make the prime ministership, but he was a leader of the Liberal Party. All of them expressed the fundamental decency which is integral to the Australian character—that is, to give others a fair go, to treat them fairly and to say sorry.Madam President, the Labor Party would rather be addressing a motion which better reflects the injustices and better reflects the magnanimity of Australian people. Opportunities have been lost over the last few years. What we should be focused on here today is the chance to seize the moment and seize the opportunities for the future. As Mick Dodson says, the families who are most affected by the stolen generations have not really been involved in the evolution and definition of what is before this parliament.This is a belated half-hearted attempt to address the issue. We are committed to a full and unreserved apology to indigenous Australians for the injustice they have suffered, and we are also committed to an honest recollection of our history. As I said, this is something that has involved generations who are in this parliament, not former generations, and this is something that really needs—for the moment, for Australia's definition of history—a lot more magnanimity and not an escape clause.13:15:007831Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I welcome this motion of reconciliation because of its positive tone and its commitment to the future. We must all respond to the views of our electorate constituencies, and within those constituencies there are many groups and subgroups. Probably the most important interest group on this issue to me in the Northern Territory electorate is my own family. My son, Coryn, has very strong and positive views on this issue. He has certainly been arguing with and attempting to influence me profoundly in the last year or so, and I think the tenor of his comments is very obvious in this motion.My daughter, Amalia, has very strong views about the community in which she lives and what she sees of the future. But, probably more importantly, their cousins—Aaron, Stephen and Tammy Abala—have much more at stake, because they have an Aboriginal heritage. I believe this motion will bring together the comments and the aspirations of many of those cousins.From this day forward, it is important that we remove the politically correct tokenism that so many people have focused on in the past and the corners of the boxing ring to which we have all been drawn. The time for mouthing platitudes is past, and we must speak realistically not only about the problems we face but also about their causes and their solutions.Perhaps the most important phrase in the motion is that we `respect and appreciate our differences'. Respect is vital for reconciliation and appreciation of someone else's culture. I think we have achieved this respect and appreciation in the Northern Territory to a greater degree than elsewhere in Australia. The differences in society are very obvious, and the differences within Aboriginal society are also equally important to note. There are huge differences between Aboriginal communities in remote, isolated, traditional living environments in the Northern Territory and those on the east coast.Reconciliation is more than white Australians apologising to black Australians for past wrongs and injustices. It is about all Australians respecting, accepting and acknowledging each other's cultures and lifestyles and, importantly, introducing love into the equation. In all of the debates that I have heard on this issue, it is very obvious that from time to time we do not talk about how we express or how we convey love and, sadly, I think that that has been the missing part of the equation for the last few years.In Darwin, a city of almost 100,000 people, we have a very unique blending and interacting of cultures. What is often described, by some who come from elsewhere in Australia, as a laid-back lifestyle is in fact an accepting one. We in Darwin, and most other parts of the Territory, accept the rights of other people to live as they like. We respect others' cultures and admire what they have to offer us. The Territory is unique, I believe, in the way that its residents have adopted aspects of other cultures to complement their own.Ten years ago I spoke at a function in Darwin. I looked around the room and said that, in 10 or 20 years, most of the people in that room would have someone of Aboriginal background and someone of Asian background in their family. It is absolutely amazing and deeply satisfying to me to see the number of people who have now stopped me in the street to say that that prediction has come true. I say `satisfying' because it shows how truly accepting and multicultural people in Australia are.Importantly, the motion we are debating acknowledges that our past history contains some unsavoury and ghastly experiences which produced unacceptable practices and consequences. We must know that, still today, the sins of our fathers are visited on too many Aboriginal Australians and other Australians.In 1967 this parliament instituted an important referendum which drew a line in the sand on Aboriginal rights and involvement in the Australian nation. That was over 30 years ago, and much has happened. There are still a lot of areas where our priorities, our dealings and our attention to detail was not good enough in those 30 years. In the last couple of years we have had very intense debates in this parliament with regard to indigenous rights, specifically with regard to land.All of those issues now, I believe, are very comprehensively accepted, are in place and are part of the law and the culture of Australia. But it is important that the motion today now draws another line in the sand. By drawing a line in the sand we can now look to at least the next 30 years—hopefully, for most of us in this place—and ask: what will be our commitment; what will be the influence we want to have; what will be the priorities we will determine; and what will be, at a government level, the programs and the policies that we will institute and adopt to put our personal commitments into place?One of my colleagues in a party room debate yesterday pointed out very clearly that true reconciliation can only take place in our homes and in our living rooms. It is only when I have a backyard barbecue, as I did last Sunday night with my nephews and niece, that you get that very proper aspect of reconciliation that is so important. There is so much to commend this motion because of what it offers the future.13:22:007832Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support Labor's amendment to this motion. That is what we should be voting on in the house today. We should be voting for the full and unreserved apology which the stolen generation deserves, and ultimately must have and will have from a more enlightened and representative Prime Minister at some time further down the line.The problem here is the smallness of the Prime Minister, his inability to rise to the required words of, `I am sorry on behalf of the nation,' which is going to be the end point of this inevitable process. They are words, but they are important words. This halfway house of regrets that we have is simply part of a process towards somebody else doing what our Prime Minister fails to do on behalf of this nation.I have a heavy heart and regrets about the fact that it is the indigenous people who are having to give again. After two centuries, on a matter that is symbolic like this, it required giving by the indigenous people for the Prime Minister to be able to get what essentially he wanted to be able to be accommodated in this matter. We are really marking time along the road to a much more mature and dignified and essential outcome, which is the national expression of sorrow which has been able to be put forward in all state jurisdictions now.Yesterday, Senator Ridgeway did point to Queensland as having the worst expression, which was one of regret, and here we are with that worst level as far as states are concerned. He also mentioned that the Apple Isle, Tasmania, had the best expression. It was put forward by the Greens, the Labor Party and by then Premier Rundle, who moved the motion back in 1997. I want to read that because it is very brief. It is what we should be supporting here today. The motion was:That this parliament on behalf of all Tasmanians—read Australians there—expresses its deep and sincere regrets at the hurt and distress caused by past policies under which Aboriginal children were removed from their families and homes, apologises to the Aboriginal people for those past actions, and reaffirms its support for reconciliation between all Australians.That is what we should be supporting here today, and I support the Labor amendment because it brings us in line with that direct sentiment.Senator Ridgeway said that this house represents the views of the nation. In effect, it represents the diversity of views in the nation. If it is going to do that adequately it has to be able to consult with its constituencies. I, for one, have not had time to contact my constituency, let alone the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, to get feedback on what it thinks about this form of words. So I, as a representative, feel inadequate to this task. I do not feel it is my place to be able to judge on this matter without the Aboriginal community in my home state having considered and been given the time to discuss the matter. So, having the motion suddenly before the chamber at a bit after noon today, with no prior warning as far as I am concerned, and with no approach to see whether the Greens would co-sponsor the motion, defeats that purpose of it being truly representative of the views of the people whom we represent in this place.With those words, I say as a stage along the road that I am not going to do anything but support every move in that direction. But my heart is full of regret that the Prime Minister has not given this nation the words that ultimately it must express. We are here in a process, and we have not found our way home in this matter.13:27:007833Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The topic of reconciliation and the treatment of the stolen generation has been on the national stage for many years, but it seems as if in the last 24 hours it has well and truly had the spotlight put on it. Similar to my colleague, Senator Brown, I ask why I learnt of this move by the government to put this motion before the Senate less than some two hours ago.Coming from the Northern Territory, where a third of the population are indigenous, I certainly have not had any time to contact indigenous leaders in the territory in either the north or the south—people like Mr Tilmouth or Galarrwuy Yunupingu and leaders in that area—to get a feel for what they think about this. I ask myself: why are we suddenly standing here today debating or even looking at this motion? What has actually changed in this government in the last couple of hours, or days? What has brought about a change of heart from the Prime Minister? Has it been the change in the composition of people who are before us in the Senate today?I hear what Senator Ridgeway says about Dr O'Donoghue's comments, but there is a part of me that cannot help think that this is all about politics, that this is all about the government now realising that not an awful lot of their legislation is going to get through this chamber unless they walk beside the Democrats. So, I am feeling somewhat suspicious that without most indigenous leaders in this country having had a chance to look at this, and without people who come into this parliament representing indigenous Austral ians having had the chance to take it back to their states or territories either, this cannot be anything but politics.The Howard government today is where I think it should have been three years ago when it took office. The debate we are having today should have been around three years ago. Whether we say `regret', whether we say `we apologise' or whether we say the word `sorry' should have been out there in the ether for Australians and indigenous Australians to talk about. But it has been written and it has been documented in the Bringing them home report. So let us cast our minds back to three months ago and this year's Sorry Day. We have organisations who have not been afraid to use that word. We had National Sorry Day. And, just three months ago, this government and this Prime Minister were not prepared to make the step that they have made today.The actions of this government are not under debate today; I do not think their policies or their decisions are in the limelight and it is not appropriate that we go into them. But when we talk about standing in this chamber and representing all Australians, diverse Australians, as Senator Brown said, there are very, very many of us out there who actually want to see the word `sorry' or `apology' in any motion this government puts through. So, no, this motion does not represent what Australians want. There are very, very many of us out there who want to hear this government and want to be part of this parliament apologising to the stolen generations. If the word `sorry' is not good enough—and I do not understand why it is not—then `regret' is certainly not good enough. You see, the word `regret' actually brings us down to the lowest common denominator. I do not believe that, as a federal parliament, that is where we should be at. We should be striving, I believe, to reach the highest standards and to offer the best.I will just say one other thing. This is, as I said back in May, about a journey of reconciliation. This is about us walking beside our indigenous Australians. Once again, we have found that they have walked some of the way and we have walked some of the way, or the Prime Minister has attempted to, but the indigenous Australians have come half way, again. I know they have been met by the Prime Minister and the efforts of this government to reach a compromise. But it is not about indigenous people walking any way, half way or three-quarters of the way. They are down the road. They have suffered the injustices. They have been ignored by this country by virtue of our Constitution, by the fact that it took us nearly 67 years to give them a vote. They have walked the path and they have suffered for that. They do not need to only walk half way here. We need to reach out and embrace what we have been hearing them say for many, many years. We are the ones that need to take this issue all the way. White Australians are the ones that need to reach out and put forward a very strong statement that indigenous Australians have wanted to hear.My colleague from the Northern Territory talked about words of love being omitted in all of this debate. I will just say this: when you truly love somebody, you are also prepared to say you are sorry to that person. You do not offer regret for your actions or for words that you have said, but you actually open your heart, and when you love someone you are also prepared to say that you are sorry to this person.I want to place on record that I personally think that this is a start. But it is a start that I think the government and the parliament should be putting out into the public for them to have a look at. This motion should not start and finish in the hour and a half today, in a rush. There is no rush for this. I know it is something that indigenous Australians have wanted for a long time, but it is something that should be out there for people to look at and comment upon.I recognise the work that Senator Ridgeway has done. I do recognise the work and the steps that the government have taken in this. I do not think it is far enough. I do not think it is what a lot of Australians want. They do want to see this parliament apologise. They do want to see the word `sorry'. I would ask people to support our amendments and then support the motion as a whole.13:35:007834Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—In rising to speak to this motion—and I will keep my remarks brief—I would like to begin by congratulating Senator Ridgeway and the Prime Minister for the leadership that they have shown in getting this motion before the Senate, as part of the parliament of Australia, today. I find it rather sad that we can have people criticising the motion on the basis that it has been rushed, that it is not well thought out, that it has not been before the Australian public, because many, if not all, of the Australian public have had on their conscience for a long time the issue of how you can get an acceptable solution that—and I want to raise the word `fear' that Senator Ridgeway put forward—would remove the fear.I am going to say today what I have said before in this place. I grew up in a community where 25 per cent of the people were Aboriginal. In my education, for virtually all my primary school days, there were more Aboriginal children than there were Europeans. In the sporting teams that I played in there were as many or more Aboriginals than there were Europeans. We had a great friendship. We had a great respect. We worked together, we played together, we drank together. And, of course, you come from a different perspective when you have spent your youth in these circumstances. I have also seen the fear—I have seen the fear in the white community and I have seen the fear in the black community. I say to Senator Ridgeway: today, you have touched and brought before this parliament a very important aspect to be overcome to progress reconciliation. I compliment you on that.I said in the party room earlier today, as Senator Boswell acknowledged, that having grown up during the 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s I acknowledge being a contemporary part of some of the things that we regret did happen. But I was also a part of the good things that happened, and there were many good things. It is always dangerous to mention names, but I am going to acknowledge out of the Moora district a few families, black and white, who were involved in a lot of the good things that happened, because we need to recognise when we are debating these issues that it was not all bad. There were bad parts, but there were also good parts. There are parts that we regret; there are parts which we are very proud of.The people I want to mention in my contribution in this regard begin with Dr Myles, in Moora. There could not have been a finer doctor in terms of treating all Australians absolutely equally in how he looked after them and what he did, in very difficult circumstances. On the other side, I want to mention the Yappo family, the Narrier family. I shore for about seven or eight years in a team which was basically run by the Narrier family, and I saw what they did, how they worked and how they dealt with a difficult issue. I want to mention Father Basil, a Benedict monk down in New Norcia. The way that he pulled people together and got people working together and doing things is something that should be acknowledged in this debate. It gives us a guiding line as to how we can develop reconciliation, how we can bring people, black and white, back together.I particularly want to mention my own mother and father, and my grandparents. I have to say quite clearly here that, while I am quite happy to say that I regret, they had nothing to be regretful for. I want to mention the Jackamarra family, the May family, equally Aboriginal families, who did an enormous amount to support a lot of people who were in difficult situations. And, of course, there were many others.I see this as a very positive way forward. I see this motion as a motion which will come to grips with that component of the fear which does exist. I do not think it is as much as it was a few years ago. I may be wrong on that; I am only making a personal judgment. But I want to re-emphasise that we need to look at the whole perspective of this issue before us. We need to open up our hearts in terms of dealing with some of the difficulties that we will have in the future.I think if we take forward into the community the spirit of the purpose behind what has been done here, if we show the leadership that is required, as people elected by the people of Australia to represent them in this parliament, this motion can do one hell of a lot toward overcoming some of the difficulties of the past and progressing the future. In this way we can become a much better and more harmonious society, one that we will continue to be proud of. This will go a long way to giving every Australian, whether ethnic, white, black or whatever they might be, a way forward which will make sure that we become a more tolerant and better society.13:40:007835Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I want to acknowledge the work done by Senator Ridgeway in getting this motion together. I say, though, that the amendments put forward by the opposition best sum up the issues that are at stake here. This motion deals with fundamental issues for indigenous Australians but it deals also with fundamental issues for non-indigenous Australians. I find, as a non-indigenous Australian, that the motion does not adequately cater for the problems that I have with my mind, my heart, my conscience—and my soul, for that matter—whereas the other wording does.Words can have great meaning. There is great meaning in the word `sorrow' and there is great meaning in the word `regret', and they are two different concepts. I regret if I cannot come around to visit you this afternoon, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I would be very sorry if I injured you in any way, whether in terms of your body or of your mind. The difference between those two words is quite dramatic.From my point of view, from that of the non-indigenous people with whom I associate, it is clear that the motion as put forward is an effort that needs to be acknowledged. But it certainly does not come to that point which we should now come to, whereas the amendment does. It is for that reason that I am pleased that the opposition has put forward this amendment. It should have been put forward.I note that Senator Ridgeway says that what he wanted was a unanimous acclamation of the motion. But I do think the situation is such for non-indigenous Australians and, perhaps, for indigenous Australians—he would know that better than I—that perhaps it is already time to say what is said in the amendment. I say that the word `regret' perhaps appeals to the mind; the word `sorry' appeals not only to the mind but to the heart and the soul, and it is the one that should be used in this context.13:43:007836Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I come to this debate very late. In recent months I have been profoundly affected by a current Senate inquiry into indigenous education. The inquiry has gone to some of the most distant and remote parts of Australia. We have been to Gove, to Bourke, to Brewarrina, to the Torres Strait and to Kintore, which is 400 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs. The week after next we will be going to Kalgoorlie and Laverton. I find myself constantly churning through the issues of what I have seen out in remote and rural Australia, particularly as it relates to the education of Aboriginal people.I was at a private dinner at the ANU last night and, instead of discussing higher ed policy, I found myself discussing for about half an hour what we should do in the area of indigenous education. It has been one of the most difficult policy areas that I have ever come across. What I saw out there really brought home to me the need for us, as an Australian community, to put a massive effort into not only going through this process of reconciliation but trying to do something about the plight of indigenous people in remote areas.I have come on a long journey in my own attitudes. In 1988 when we had the bicentenary, I got very angry about some of the activities of indigenous people with regard to the bicentenary. I clearly remember my wife and even my children pulling me up on this at that time. But over recent weeks, I have had a profound shift in attitude. The challenge before this parliament is to move the process of reconciliation forward in such a way that we bring the Australian people with us. Changes in attitude will possibly move quite slowly. It is a great pity that in recent years it was set back by the activities of One Nation.Senator Harris is going to contribute to this debate today. I appeal to you, Senator Harris. I would really like to see the scales fall from your eyes as they have from mine, to see the profound disadvantage that indigenous people suffer because they fall between two cultures. It really behoves us as a parliament to move the process of reconciliation forward and to move forward with practical solutions to improve their lifestyles and help people in these situations achieve their aspirations.I would like to pay special tribute to Senator Ridgeway for the pivotal role that he has played in recent weeks in moving on this situation and breaking through the impasse that we have had in this area. I think we now have a form of words which the Australian people should be very comfortable with. It is a great pity in this debate that Senator Faulkner did not acknowledge this situation. Obviously, he is pointing to a perfect solution which maybe we will get to in the future. But we have to acknowledge that as a parliament we really have to bring the Australian people with us. I hope that the comments of Senator Ridgeway yesterday, which were widely publicised across the nation, will help bring on a great change of attitude in the Australian people.Senator Faulkner tended to denigrate the way this statement is worded. Some of the key ideas in this statement included a wholehearted commitment to the cause of reconciliation, an acknowledgment of the mistreatment of many Aboriginal people, reference to a most significant blemish on our national history, and a deep and sincere regret of the injustices indigenous people have suffered in this country. It is a major step forward. Various people in this parliament over the last few years have personally got up and apologised for the treatment of indigenous people. I would like to do that now and put my personal apology and say sorry to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for their mistreatment over the last 200 years.One of the key areas under discussion in relation to an apology for mistreatment has been the stolen generation. My wife Pam works in the area of social welfare and deals in situations where children have to be removed from their family because they are being mistreated. In the past it was done often with the best of intentions. But the real thing to look at in indigenous situations is whether the children were mistreated and whether or not they were loved in that situation. Errors were obviously made. A lot of those people like Dr O'Donoghue have gone on to great things in our society because they had a more traditional Western education. But we have also got to look at it from the point of view of the parents. I am a father of six. How would I feel? I try to put myself in that situation—if someone turned up to my door and took my six children away. It is that side of what happened that we do have to be profoundly sorry for.I am heartened that this debate has moved on significantly in the last week. It gives me hope that we can now move on not only to reconciliation but also to a situation where we have a real determination in this country to try and set things right as far as possible and help people who have fallen between two cultures to achieve their aspirations.13:45:007837Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I rise to support this motion. It is an historic occasion and we should seize the moment now and adopt this motion unanimously. I do not know what the fuss is all about between the words of Senator Faulkner virtually saying, `You have to say sorry,' and the words of the motion `deep and sincere regret.' If you have a look at the dictionary definition of regret, it says `to feel sorry about anything', `to think with a sense of loss.' Surely, we should think about the sense of loss that has been occasioned to everybody in Australia as a result of the injustices perpetrated against the indigenous people of Australia.The dictionary goes on to describe regret as `the feeling of being sorry for some fault, omission, of one's own'—that is, you own it and express regret—`a feeling of sorrow over what is lost, gone, done' and `a polite and formal expression of regretful feelings'. It is a humble expression. When a child does something wrong and the parent says, `Say sorry!', the kid says sorry but may not mean it, whereas `deep and sincere regret' means it.Senator Bolkus says that Senator Aden Ridgeway has changed his mind since last night. Senator Ridgeway did mention the Queensland motion, but he was clearly referring to other parts of the Queensland statement which are nowhere near as open, fulsome and wholehearted as this particular motion. But there is not time to go into that.Senator Aden Ridgeway explained the fear that might be engendered. We have to understand that there is a fear and apprehension in the community as to where we are going. I believe our Aboriginal geographical parents at least know that if, on their behalf, we are saying to other Australians, `You have to say sorry,' in that sort of petulant terminology, that does not move us any distance along the way of true reconciliation. I think now we should, as I said, seize the moment and move along the path of true reconciliation and adopt unanimously this motion which is before both houses of parliament.13:55:007837Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to speak to this motion and to preface an amendment that I will move later on. The amendment does not detract from the motion; I feel it adds to the sincerity of the motion. Reconciliation is an exchange between more than one party, so it is very obvious that if there is only one party, with whom does that party reconcile?Reconciliation is an issue that faces all Australians. In 1967 a referendum gave the indigenous people of this land the right to vote. That was the time when reconciliation should have started, and it should have been completed well before now. It is an indictment on each Australian—every one of us—that this has not happened. We need to learn from the past and we need to move forward.There is a bond. Where I come from in North Queensland we live side by side with Aboriginal people. There is a bond, and we need to move on now and build on that bond. I would like to commend the Prime Minister and Senator Ridgeway. I also commend Senator Herron for the marvellous work that he has been doing in the communities, assisting indigenous people in the areas of health, welfare and sanitation. These are the areas that we need to progress. Thank you. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Faulkner's ) be agreed to.14:02:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)24Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Hutchins, S. P. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. McLucas, J. E.O'Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.40Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Harris, L.Heffernan, W. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.Denman, K. J. Campbell, I. G.Evans, C. V. Payne, M. A.Lundy, K. Herron, J.McKiernan, J. P. Bourne, V.Murphy, S. M. Parer, W. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Harris has foreshadowed amendments. I now ask Senator Harris to formally move the amendment.Amendments (by Senator Harris)—by leave—not agreed to:Paragraph (c), after "indigenous", insert "and non-indigenous".Paragraph (e), after "indigenous", insert "and non-indigenous".Paragraph (f), after "indigenous" (wherever occurring), insert "and non-indigenous".Original question resolved in the affirmative.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I seek leave to make a very brief statement on the matter.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You at this stage would have the opportunity to ask that your no vote be recorded in Hansard , but otherwise it would need the leave of the Senate. Is leave granted to Senator Brown to make a statement?Leave not granted.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—If you wish to have your vote recorded, that could be done. We will proceed to questions without notice.Ministerial Arrangements783814:07:007838Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I seek leave to make a statement about ministerial arrangements.Leave not granted.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I table the statement about ministerial arrangements.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Thank you. The minister has tabled a statement about ministerial arrangements.Questions Without Notice783878387838Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—My question is to Senator Hill representing the Prime Minister. In light of Justice Hely's order last Friday that the federal government pay all of Mr Barratt's costs in Barratt v. John Winston Howard, how much has the botched attempt to sack Mr Barratt cost the Australian taxpayer so far in legal fees? How much per hour will the taxpayer be paying for the likes of Bob Ellicott and Tom Hughes, the Commonwealth Solicitor-General and the defamation solicitor, only for the Howard government to find itself back at square one?7839Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I do not know what the cost to the Commonwealth of the matter will be. I regret that there will be, if there is cost to the taxpayer out of this matter. I will try and get some information.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—So you will take it on notice?BH4Senator HILL—I suspect we will not know for some time, because the costs will have to be taxed, but I will see what information I can find for the Senate.7839Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. On top of these current and any future legal costs, how much has this bungling cost the taxpayer and the Australian community? What has been the cost of the paralysis at the top of the Defence bureaucracy, the cancelling of portfolio secretaries' meetings and the loss of productivity through senior bureaucrats off-line seeking lawyers' advice on their own contracts as a result of the Barratt farce?7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Madam President, I raise a point of order. That is not a supplementary question. It does not arise out of the answer at all.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Supplementary questions rarely arise out of the answer, but it is on the same topic. If Senator Hill has anything else to say, he may add it.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam President: with respect, it is a supplementary question, it is in order and he is entitled to ask it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have ruled that Senator Hill may deal with it. I do not need to hear the argument, Senator.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am taking a separate point of order, Madam President. Senator Vanstone is continuing her new approach to question time, which is to interrupt the flow of question time with spurious points of order which you consistently rule out of order, and you sit her down, as you should. I ask you, if she does it in future, to use your authority to deal with her.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.7839Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have got nothing to add to the answer I have given.78397839Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Is the minister aware of any threats to the employment of over 200,000 young Australians? Will the minister inform the Senate of what action our government is taking to protect junior rates of pay, and what is the government doing to further assist young people to enter the work force?7839Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I thank Senator Mason very much for that question, because it really goes right to the heart of whether you are seriously committed to improving the economic lot of ordinary Australians. There are something like 400,000 young people under the age of 21, so youth wages is a vitally important issue. What we have managed to do, I think, is to make it very clear where we stand on this issue. We want to not only protect junior rates but now we will permanently exempt traineeships and apprenticeships from age discrimination and require the AIRC, when simplifying awards that apply to work that is or could be performed by young people, to ensure that they support youth employment by including junior rates of pay where appropriate.The Labor Party, very grudgingly, finally came on board—temporarily, I might say—having studied those opinion polls very closely and having realised that the public overwhelmingly support this proposition. I note what Tim Colebatch had to say this morning. He does not always agree with our economics, but he said this:The economic case for junior wages is overwhelming. Young workers are not born with job-specific skills and experience. . . . The coalition and Labor have done Australia's young workers a favor.Of course, there are other similar editorials which make it plain that this is the right decision. So really what we should be doing is ensuring that there is no backsliding. But what did Mr Crean have to say this morning? He assured the unions that they did not have to worry because this was all just temporary. He said:Well, these things will heal. I mean, the relationship between the trade union movement and the Labor Party is a deeply embedded one.We know what that means. It is a euphemism for, `We will put our people into parliament when we have had enough of them, and in return we will make sure that you get massive handouts,' like the $100 million they got between 1983 and 1996. Mr Crean went on to say this:What we've got to do is try and find the position that can actually get the numbers in the parliament and ensure that an agenda that the government was hell-bent on introducing . . . is not carried out.In other words, Mr Crean is making it abundantly clear that this is just a tactical retreat on the part of the Labor Party and is urging the trade union movement to put the greater interest of the movement to the fore so that they can get Labor re-elected, and then it is business as usual. In other words, they will not then be interested in Australian workers; they will be interested in pursuing political outcomes.That is a tragic outcome from this decision because it was an historic opportunity for Labor to really start moving away, to show that they were not just locked in. Unfortunately, we have the unions making it quite clear what the agenda is, saying things like, `The reason unions affiliated with the ALP was to have the ability to influence political outcomes in the interests of members.' So no-one is under any doubt where they stand. I very interested to see what Steve Roach of the CFMEU said recently. He said:I have seen many people over the years I have been involved in the movement who looked upon the union movement as an opportunity to advance their own career.I think if you look in the Senate today you will see a number of people here who would be struggling to find any significant contribution they have made to the union movement.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of conversation in the chamber and across this chamber is unacceptably high.Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I regard it as disorderly for senators to go on speaking across the chamber when I am addressing the Senate.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am very disappointed that Senator Conray seems to think that—UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators—Conray?LD4Senator ALSTON—If he can call Mr Barresi `Mr Berassi', I can call him Senator Conray.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, address the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—He really had people like you opposite in mind. That is the tragedy of it, you see, because they do expect a return on their investment. When they look around this place and they see what they are getting, no wonder they are bitterly disappointed. They certainly do not think that what you have done recently is right, even though we know that junior wage rates are what the AIRC, the Productivity Commission and every sensible citizen know is right. (Time expired)78407840McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm how much money residents paid to the Alimar Nursing Home in Melbourne, through the government's $12 a day accommodation charge, prior to the home's closure in January this year? Can the minister guarantee that this money was spent on capital improvements to the home? Can the minister confirm how much money the Commonwealth paid to the Alimar Nursing Home through the concessional resident supplement? Can the minister guarantee that this money was spent on capital improvements to the home?7840Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As the minister representing the minister who represents the Minister for Aged Care, I will be happy to try to get you some more detail other than what is in the brief which I have been provided with already. I do think it is a pity that the more senior members of the opposition have not given a briefing to the newer members on areas of policy on which their party is very vulnerable because of their performance while in government. If ever there was such an area, it is this: nursing homes run down, in a terrible state, with Professor Bob Gregory doing a report commissioned by the Labor government as to what needed to be done. How many billions of dollars of expenditure was it? Something like $6 billion? I forget the exact figure but it was a huge figure that needed spending to restore nursing homes in Australia to an acceptable standard for older Australians: safety, fire and all those areas that most of us would want covered very well if it was a case of either ourselves or our parents being in those nursing homes.So, Senator, I am sorry you have not received an adequate brief on your own party's failures. Alimar was a Melbourne home which closed voluntarily this year after a long history of poor care and financial sanctions imposed by the government—but under Labor. It is very typical of what your party turned a blind eye to for a decade: poor quality care, poor providers operating with impunity. That is not to say that is the majority of operators by any means; the majority of homes do deliver excellent care. But our government, unlike the Labor government, will not tolerate the minority who are poor operators. Older Australians deserve better.I might say that the industry also deserves a better image. Most of the industry is very concerned to ensure that the image of the industry is improved and they support the measures that the government has introduced. We have introduced a new accreditation system, accountability, recognition of excellence and strong action for poor performers. These reform measures of our government, Senator, have got strong support from industry groups and consumers.I am also pleased to have support from the Australian Democrats—Senators Allison and Woodley. These Democrats are on the record as having said it is a huge step forward. And it highlights the hypocrisy of the Labor Party, who had 13 years in government, were told what needed doing in chapter and verse, well publicised to the nation—Professor Gregory told them authoritatively what they needed to do. That was in about 1994. They had two to three years—in the latter years of their government when they were falling into this policy-free area—to do something important for the older people in Australia, and they failed.Senator Evans has also been quoted as criticising the system because there is not yet any direct obligation for providers to use the accommodation charges for capital works. I guess this goes somewhat to the area that the senator wanted to hear some details on. Can I say about Senator Evans's comments: what breathtaking hypocrisy! The very thing that he has called for is in an amendment bill that is before the Senate, a bill that has been blocked by the ALP for months. There is no good reason to block it—it only increases residents' protections and it is strongly supported by consumer groups. So why is the ALP playing politics on this again? It is just blatant obstructionism—no ideas, no policy, whingeing, negative and now hypocrisy with criticism about this matter. It is outrageous. (Time expired)7841McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Isn't it true that, under the Howard government's failed aged care policies, the Alimar Nursing Home was under no obligation to spend one dollar of these funds on capital improvement and that in this case the provider simply pocketed residents' and taxpayers' dollars before fleeing the industry?7841Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not think the senator was listening. I just said that her party is obstructing and blocking a piece of legislation which will provide that sort of protection for older people and do the job that she is wanting done.78417841McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. What are the government's plans for reforming the petrol industry to make it more competitive and are there any alternative propo sals to reform? What would be the impact of these alternative proposals?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of breach of standing orders in the chamber this afternoon is absolutely unacceptable.7842Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator McGauran for his question. The reform of the petrol market is another example of a policy issue that is difficult, but it is one where the government is determined to act in the national interest. But, of course, Labor just go on playing politics. Over the last two years we have taken the Industry Commission report and the ACCC report and we have set out a petrol policy that is good for consumers, good for service station owners and good for the industry. We have developed a comprehensive oil code which will give service station owners the best protection they have ever had under any legislation.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What is happening about prices?4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—You can't get the oil code agreed to.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Persistent interjection is disorderly and there are senators who ought to know that.JX4Senator MINCHIN—In addition to an oil code, we want to get—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It doesn't apply to existing contracts.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Sherry, I have just spoken about that.JX4Senator MINCHIN—We want to get rid of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act, which actually acts perversely to restrict competition in the petrol market. But all we get from the opposition are stunts and slogans and no action.Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, I invite you to read the provisions of standing order 203, which refer to persistent interjecting.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Thank you, Madam President. The latest stunt is a statement from someone called Joel Fitzgibbon, who is the shadow minister for small business and tourism and who has issued a release this week saying that Labor want to put in a private member's bill to allow petrol station franchisees to purchase 50 per cent of their petrol from another supplier. I must say that I was very surprised that the son of Eric would actually come up with a really dumb idea like this. I do not know how on earth it ever got through the caucus; you must have all been asleep. This is a really crazy idea, something you never even contemplated in 13 years of government. It is a dumb idea because it just hurts—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I just wonder if have you noticed that Senator Minchin, in his weekly dorothy on a Thursday, was not addressing the Senate through the chair?10000The PRESIDENT—I was not aware of that. The noise being made by Senator Schacht is making it very difficult to hear. Senator Minchin, any remarks should be addressed to the chair of course. Senator Schacht, I invite you to consider persistent and wilful interjecting and where it can lead.JX4Senator MINCHIN—This issue obviously hurts Labor very much, but this crazy idea that somehow got through the caucus actually hurts everybody—consumers, the dealers, oil companies and taxpayers. What Labor are proposing, in effect, is to tear up all existing supply contracts and actually expose all Australians to billions of dollars in compensation. The extrapolation of Labor's policy is to allow McDonald's franchisees to sell KFC hamburgers, or chicken burgers, at their Big Mac stores. You clearly do not understand the oil industry. You clearly do not understand small business. Labor clearly do not understand franchising.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—You shouldn't tell lies, Senator Minchin.Honourable senators interjecting—JX4Senator MINCHIN—For the benefit of the Labor Party, who know nothing about business.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Abetz, were you taking a point of order?AW5CARRSenator Carr—He's got his hands in his pockets again.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Mine are above the table, unlike yours.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in the chamber is totally unacceptable by any standard.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Could I invite you to ask Senator Crowley to withdraw the completely unparliamentary interjection that she made against the minister.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Madam President, on the point of order. Senator Crowley gave advice for Senator Minchin not to tell lies. She did not say that he was telling lies.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not hear what was said at the time, and I can only rely on Senator Crowley to withdraw if she in fact said something that was unparliamentary.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Would senators on my right cease making so much noise.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—Madam President, as you would know, I am never other than parliamentary. But I would say in this case that, if Senator Minchin does not care to hear the instructions that were passed across the chamber, then he is suffering from invincible ignorance. Read the bill; get it right.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! My difficulty is that I did not hear what Senator Crowley said at the time. I am attempting to deal with the matter raised by Senator Abetz. I did not hear what was said by Senator Crowley.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on the point of order: I did hear precisely what Senator Crowley said, and I am none the wiser.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I think the chamber is developing into a totally unacceptable state. I think it would be better if Senator Minchin proceeded with his answer.JX4Senator MINCHIN—What Mr Fitzgibbon has proposed is a bill to `address the lack of wholesale competition in the industry by giving service station franchisees the legislatively guaranteed right to shop around for up to 50 per cent of their petrol'. The Labor Party all come from the trade unions and they do not know anything about business. They do not know what a franchise agreement actually is. A franchise agreement means that a company, in this case Shell, McDonald's or whoever, provides the equipment, the know-how, the marketing, the location and the brand identity, and then the franchisee in return has the right to sell that company's products. It is a contract freely entered into by both sides. What they are proposing is that, by government fiat, we tear up those contracts and allow franchisees to go wherever they like for their petrol. That is exactly what Labor are proposing.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—The petrol's all the same—different brand names, but it's from the same refinery.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Madam President, I raise a point of order in relation to standing order 203, and I draw your attention to Senator Schacht's wilful and total disregard for your rulings. You have called him to attention no fewer than three or four times already today, yet he is still persisting in interjecting and trying to interrupt the proceedings of the parliament. Could I ask you to call him to order yet again or take action.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are several senators who have been interjecting, and Senator Schacht is amongst the worst of them today. I would ask you to have some regard for what this process is: it is question time, an opportunity to ask questions and get answers, and there are people attempting to listen. The correspondence and the telephone calls I have been receiving lately indicate that there is a fairly high level of dissatisfaction by those who attempt to listen with the performance of this chamber.JX4Senator MINCHIN—This anti-business, idiotic proposal was never recommended by either of the major inquiries—4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Who put this up?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you were warned about your behaviour.JX4Senator MINCHIN—This idea was never recommended by either of the two major independent inquiries into the petrol industry. Labor did nothing of this kind when they had 13 years in which to do it. All they did in 13 years of government was increase by 500 per cent the tax on petrol. It went from 7c a litre to 34c a litre in the period Labor were in office. That was their idea of reforming the petrol retail industry. Recently, they opposed at every single stage our tax reform package, which was all about reducing the cost of petrol.Neither Labor nor the government can do anything about world oil prices, which have doubled in the last six months. Naturally petrol prices will increase if the world oil price doubles, so we cannot control those prices. But we can make sure our petrol industry is as competitive as possible to keep downward pressure on prices. We have a plan to do that and we would like the opposition's support.78447844Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Why did the minister on two occasions on Monday this week refer to cabinet confidentiality as an excuse for refusing to release the reasons that led him and Senator Hill to select 16 projects that failed to reach the `arbitrary' and `gratuitous' benchmark of 15 points? Isn't it the case that cabinet had absolutely nothing to do with the minister's decision making process? Why did the minister deliberately mislead the Senate and the public by throwing in this ridiculous red herring?7844Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not have a precise recollection of what I said the other day on this matter, but I would be pretty confident that what I said was that the Freedom of Information Act has a couple of exemptions, both of which were called in aid in this matter. The first is section 36 `Internal working documents', and the second is section 43, `documents relating to business affairs, et cetera'. In relation to internal working documents, there is a provision that also requires that the matter be not contrary to the public interest. I think the point I made then, and I will make again, is that the Auditor-General's guidelines require adherence to the provisions of the FOI Act. They do not override them. I was simply saying that, if there are provisions in the act which allow matters to be withheld from public scrutiny, then that is a valid principle that we all ought to uphold in the same way that, if matters are raised in cabinet, there are cabinet confidentiality processes which are well recognised on all sides and which should similarly be adhered to.I think I went on to ask whether Senator Faulkner seriously thinks that, just because he is interested in some information that cabinet might have been considering, his wishes should override that well-established convention. It is preposterous nonsense. I know it is the end of a week. He has had a very tough time. This question obviously does not deserve to be taken seriously or it would have been No. 1 or No. 2. All I can say is that this is Senator Faulkner's last hurrah in a very long week.7844Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Whilst Senator Alston may not be able to recollect his words, I can. He said this to the Senate:If Senator Faulkner is seriously saying for the public record that he believes that cabinet decisions should be made available because the opposition would like them to be on the record, that is a preposterous proposal.Given that it is the minister who has raised cabinet confidentiality in the context of his refusal to release the reasons for his decision, I ask the minister: can he explain to the Senate in what way his decisions and Senator Hill's decisions in relation to these 16 projects—or indeed the entire 60 projects—are cabinet decisions and therefore subject to cabinet confidentiality? If you cannot explain, why don't you just admit you were wrong and that you misled the Senate and apologise for it?N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate earlier raised a point of order inviting you to ask certain people in the Senate to direct their comments through you. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is now embarking upon the behaviour about which he complains. I ask you to rule him out of order.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It is a thing that happens all around the chamber when asking and answering questions, and particularly with supplementaries. I have mentioned it frequently, and I will continue to do so, but it has never been my practice to call every senator to order on every breach.LD4Senator ALSTON—Madam President, on that point of order: could I ask you to rule that Senator Faulkner was completely out of order in saying what he said in a very loud voice, but over you, so you may not have heard it. He said, `I'm not going to be called to order unless everyone else is.' That seems to be quite contrary to your ruling, and I think you should indicate as much to him.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President—and don't let the minister duck away from the substantive question—the point I made is this: it would be partisan in the extreme for you or anyone else presiding in this chamber to call me or a member of the opposition to order for an offence that is constantly being committed by members of the government. One in, all in!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is exactly right, Senator Faulkner. I do call both sides of the chamber to order.7845Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As I understood Senator Faulkner's supplementary question, he was essentially confirming what I have just been saying. I thought he quoted me as saying, `If Senator Faulkner believes that cabinet decisions should be made public, that is a preposterous suggestion.' I repeat that. If that is what Senator Faulkner believes, then that is the approach I would take.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. I do not think you would want the minister to misrepresent what I said. The minister at the table has claimed that these decisions were cabinet-in-confidence. I have asked him to explain why he believes they were cabinet-in-confidence. Cabinet confidentiality has nothing to do with it. I want to have an answer to the question I asked. 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, there isn't a point of order. There is an appropriate time for you to take up the issues and debate them and demand the answers that you want.LD4Senator ALSTON—If Senator Faulkner wanted to adduce evidence to indicate that I have claimed cabinet confidentiality in relation to these matters, then he had his opportunity and he did not use it. All I can say is that it might be a little more helpful if Senator Faulkner indicated to us whether he is going to have the tipping competition independently audited, and whether you will get extra marks if you tick your own electorate.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, this is not an answer to the question that was asked.LD4Senator ALSTON—It has a lot more relevance than Senator Faulkner's question.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Get on with it!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, stop shouting across the chamber like that. I would like to remind senators that we have guests in the chamber and people listening.Distinguished Visitors784510000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the attention of senators to the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from Ireland led by Mr Seamus Pattison, Ceann Comhairle of the Dail, and Senator Brian Mullooly, Cathaoirlea of the Seanad. On behalf of honourable senators I welcome you to the Senate. I trust that your visit to this country will be informative and enjoyable. I inform senators that this is the first time that we have been honoured by a delegation led by two presiding officers at the same time. I would propose, with your concurrence, that I invite both of them to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Mr Pattison and Senator Mullooly were thereupon seated accordingly.Questions Without Notice7845TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Madam President, I raise a point of order on standing order 197, which reads:A senator shall not interrupt another senator speaking, except:(a) to call attention to a point of order or privilege; or(b) to call attention to the lack of a quorum.I raise this in relation to Senator Faulkner's behaviour. He has previously called attention to the lack of a quorum when there has been a full house, so we know his record on that. I ask for your ruling, Madam President, on whether it is appropriate for Senator Faulkner to continue to jump up and intervene when a senator is speaking and just simply make a statement as opposed to raising a particular point of order with an appropriate standing order attached to it. He just seems to be able to jump up, say what he wants to say and sit down. Could I seek your guidance on that matter?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—A point of order should be related to one of the standing orders of the Senate.78467846Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. In an earlier response to a question, I believe that the minister said that junior rates could apply to awards `where appropriate'. I am wondering if the minister considers it appropriate that, under certain federal awards, people up to the age of 22 years of age are paid a fraction of the wage of their older co-workers for work of equal value merely because of their age. Shouldn't these workers be paid according to their skill and competency, not age?7846Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not aware of the precise cut-off point in terms of age. But I think the important principle that Senator Stott Despoja seems to want to completely and consistently misunderstand is that—as all the editorial writers and commentators have pointed out today—to invoke age discrimination, despite the fact that there would be significant job losses for young Australians, is certainly not in their best interests. If you really want to re-establish yourself as a serious policy player, the sooner you face up to the economic consequences of your actions the better.The Australian Industrial Relations Commission's junior rates inquiry found that removing junior rates would have significant disemploying effects for young people. I presume Senator Stott Despoja either does not want to acknowledge that or somehow thinks there is a more important overriding principle. The report notes that this finding was not seriously challenged by the participants in the inquiry. The report indicates that, when given the opportunity to respond to this finding, the ACTU did not seek to address directly the finding or the substantial weight of economic opinion on which it is based. Furthermore, the ACTU proposal to pay adult wages to those 18 and over would still be age discriminatory and would still require an exemption from the antidiscrimination provisions of the act.So Senator Stott Despoja is really saying that she disagrees with the Labor Party and she supports the ACTU. That is not a very comfortable position to be in, given their highly advanced state of economic illiteracy. The sooner Senator Stott Despoja acknowledges that simply having arbitrary cut-off points used to justify significant increases in wages may result in people being very likely indeed to lose their jobs, the sooner we will have a sensible discussion of the issue.7846Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Obviously the minister deems it is appropriate for people up to the age of 22 to be discriminated against. So I am wondering also whether the minister considers it just—as his party did in 1992 with its Jobsback policy—that young people, such as those on the graphic arts interim award, are paid as little as $3.06 an hour. I note the minister's comments in relation to job losses, and I wonder if he is prepared to acknowledge that the 200,000 figure to which his earlier questioner referred is actually based on a flawed survey. Are you referring, Minister, to the survey by the IRA, which was not only optional—UNKNOWNGovernment senatorsGovernment senators— The IRA?3I6Senator STOTT DESPOJA—In this case, the Retailers Association. Not only was it an optional survey; it also claimed that junior rates would be abolished but did not actually acknowledge that they would be replaced by a system of competency based wages. Is that not an invalid survey? Is that the figure to which you are referring?7847Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Perhaps, Madam President, I should defer to the leader of the delegation and allow him to answer this question.Senator Cook interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—We believe in sweated labour, do we? You certainly didn't raise a sweat in the gym last night.RF4COOKSenator Cook—You didn't have the guts to front up.LD4Senator ALSTON—No-one has ever accused you of—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston and Senator Cook will stop shouting at each other across the chamber.Senator Cook interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—We couldn't have a decent fight anyway, because we're in different divisions. You're one of the few genuine lightweights in this parliament.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Alston, I call you to order.LD4Senator ALSTON—Senator Stott Despoja seems intent on maintaining that any wage differential is discriminatory, and that is the fundamental proposition that we do not accept. I think that is really where the debate starts and finishes.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to standing order 73(4), which says:In answering a question, a senator shall not debate it.I would suggest to you that there is no answer there but that Senator Alston has in fact been debating the answer right through.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Certainly the minister must not debate in answering a question. Senator Alston, do you have anything further to add to the answer?LD4Senator ALSTON—Nothing that would satisfy Senator Woodley, of course, Madam President. I was simply trying to be helpful in pointing out that the essence of this debate is whether or not you are more interested in ensuring that young people, who Senator Stott Despoja is happy to associate herself with on every—HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—Madam President, I raise my point of order again, because Senator Alston just betrayed the fact when he said `of this debate'. It is not a debate; it is a question and answer session.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Madam President, on the point of order: if Senator Woodley had read all of standing order 73, he would have read the rule that questions should not contain arguments. That is exactly what Senator Stott Despoja's question did; it contained an argument. If Senator Woodley is so upset about the minister allegedly arguing the point, why didn't he raise it in relation to Senator Stott Despoja? It is because he seeks from you, Madam President, a double standard: one to apply to the Democrats as opposed to another to apply to others in this chamber.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—In any event, it is not appropriate to be debating in an answer. I draw that to Senator Alston's attention.78477847Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister confirm that the coalition announced $2.46 million worth of funding under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program for three projects in the highly marginal seat of Bass on 8 and 16 September last year, right in the middle of the election campaign? Apart from the marginality of the seat, for what other reasons did the minister decide to spend more money in Bass than the total amount recommended by his department for the whole of the state of Tasmania?7847Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—If Senator Carr wants to know the details of the projects and the amounts involved I am more than happy to get that for him.7847Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the minister was unable to announce the three successful grants during the election period, why didn't he inform the seven unsuccessful applicants in Bass during the same election period?7848Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am even more confused than Senator Carr. I think he is now saying that we were unable to announce something in Bass during the campaign. I really don't understand the point of the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Allison—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I take a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact, President, that under the arrangements in place since 1996, as you will know, the questions have alternated—at this stage, question 8—to the three non-government, non-Democrat members of the Senate. You will be aware that there is a presidential letter on that matter addressed to then Senator Panizza in 1996 on 30 April which lays out that formula. Under that formula I would ask the question today. You have not consulted me, nor has anybody else. The question has simply been allocated to the Democrats, apparently, as best I know, on a move by the government. Madam President, you are the impartial arbiter here. This is a matter of denying a legitimate question to the Australian Greens.Honourable senators interjecting—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—It is a serious matter. I take this to be one of the most important privileges that any member of this place can have. So I ask you to reconsider the allocation of this second and potentially third question to the Democrats today on the apparent decision—unilateral decision—of the government and to properly allocate the question to me.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The question of agreements on questions and allocation of them is a matter that has been done between the parties and has for some considerable time. There are fewer Independent senators now. I think it is a matter that needs to be taken up outside the chamber. There is no point of order. I call Senator Allison.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I object to that ruling.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—We're not interested.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I have a right to object to it. I present you with that objection and ask you to take note. As you know, Madam President, I can either move dissent now and push for it to be dealt with now or I can move dissent and have that matter wait to be considered tomorrow. That will give the opportunity for all sides to be heard and for you to make a fair hearing of this. If the agreement of 1996 is to be changed, then you need to ensure that the opposition and the Greens—everybody—are taken into account before that agreement is breached. So I object to the ruling. I ask you to yet again reconsider.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I will reconsider the matter. I shall look into the whole issue and I shall consult with the party leaders and parties. I call Senator Allison.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I rise on a point of order. Madam President, this does not, in keeping with the understood rules, give me the question that is allocated today. I dissent from your ruling.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Allison.78487848Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer again to the government's decision to allow Telstra to charge for 013 calls. Is it the case that section 24 of the Telstra Corporations Act gives the minister the discretion to refer proposed charges to the ACCC to report on whether they should be disallowed in the public interest? Isn't it also the case that when 013 charging was proposed by Telstra back in 1997 the minister sought a report from the ACCC and said no to the charge? Did the minister refer this request to the ACCC and, if so, will he table a copy in the Senate?7848Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—No, I did not refer it to the ACCC and I was not required to. But I was certainly very much aware of what the ACCC had to say back in 1997 and the reasoning that they adopted. That was quite informative in reaching our decision.7849Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: if it was not referred to the ACCC, why was it not referred? Minister, in 1997 Telstra offered to reduce the annual line rental charge for all customers by $5.40 in exchange for being allowed to charge for directory assistance calls. Why is it that this time around there is no offer of a reduction in charges in exchange for Telstra charging for 013 calls?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Will there be a GST on that charge?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Address Senator Allison's question, Senator Alston. You should ignore interjections.7849Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There ought to be a hot air tax to deal with you. Madam President, I have already answered the first part of the question. I explained why it was not referred to the ACCC. Senator Allison clearly did not want to listen to that. We did in fact get a number of commitments from Telstra in relation to this proposal. There are a number of important safeguards. Apart from fixed line residential phones, no charges will apply to calls to directory assistance from charities, non-profit organisations, payphones and disabled users. Telstra has committed to answer 70 per cent of calls within 10 seconds, which I think is a very important commitment, and will provide an Internet starter kit to assist small business to go on-line and access alternative directory assistance services. It is important to also note that the Australian Consumers Association called the proposal a positive step. The Consumers Telecommunications Network is reported as saying that it is good news for households. The Canberra Times this morning said:The `free' service is a costly illusion.It seems only Senator Allison is out of step. (Time expired)78497849Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Alston.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I rise on a point of order, Madam President. In case I was misunderstood earlier, I want to make it perfectly clear that I object to the arrangement that has been made between the government and the Democrats—which apparently you knew about, but without consultation with the rest of this chamber. I move dissent from your ruling which I believe is in breach of the agreement of 1996.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—All I have ruled is that it is a matter of agreement between the parties. It is not a matter that comes up under the standing orders. Senator Cook.7849Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. How did the staffers who were present at the meeting between Senator Hill and Senator Alston on or about 27 August at which the ministers took their decisions to fund 60 out of a possible 648 eligible projects produce, as the minister claimed on radio yesterday morning:. . . a sufficient record to provide reasons for the decisions . . . What was that so-called sufficient record?7849Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There are procedures to be followed in this matter. I have been through this so many times but I will do it again if Senator Cook wants to pursue the matter further. The requirements were for Senator Hill and I to make decisions on the basis of information provided to us not only by our own departments through the joint task force but also through the National Council of the Centenary of Federation. Having considered, as Senator Cook at least acknowledges—which is more than Senator Faulkner does—all of the other eligible projects, we then made a judgment about the most appropriate projects that were deserving of funding.AW5CARRSenator Carr—With a quick reference to the electoral pendulum.LD4Senator ALSTON—You shouldn't judge others by yourself.AW5CARRSenator Carr—You were the campaign director in Victoria.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr, cease shouting.LD4Senator ALSTON—The trouble is, Madam President, on radio 2ALP this morning we had the former Senator Richardson. He was at it again, saying this was an absolute disgrace. He even said that 16 projects got the nod because they were mates of Robert Hill and Richard Alston. I have been associated with a lot of people in my time but never projects. I have never called a project a mate before. But it just shows you how this term is so ingrained that everyone is a mate in New South Wales—even Senator Faulkner it appears, who spent most of his adult life trying to knife Senator Richardson. But of course now they are mates.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I draw your attention to the question.LD4Senator ALSTON—I have not noticed any objection being taken, Madam President, so I assume that it was a fair cop as far as Labor was concerned. But, just to complete the picture, there are obligations imposed, or certainly the auditor had prescribed guidelines which were followed. Reasons were provided. Senator Faulkner made a desultory effort to access them through FOI, and there the matter rests.7850Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister has not answered the question I put to him. Let me ask it again. You said on Radio National that `a sufficient record' was kept to provide the reasons for your decision.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Your question should be directed to the chair, Senator.RF4Senator COOK—How was that record kept? Did the `sufficient record' provide the basis for the preparation of a document, signed by ministers well after the election—on or about 5 November, in fact—entitled `Federation cultural and heritage grants program—reasons for decision'?7850Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Under the Auditor-General's guidelines we were required to provide reasons for the decisions made, and we did.78507850Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman. In light of the coalition's commitment to maintaining the public integrity of the social security system, could the minister please advise the Senate of the current government initiatives to improve that integrity?7850Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Knowles. It is very visible how interested people on our side of the table are in policy compared with the opposition.UI4RAYSenator Robert Ray—Oh, turn off the record.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Ray does not like the record but, Senator Ray, it is the truth as well. I appreciate the fact that on this side of the chamber intelligent questions about policy matters are actually introduced onto the public agenda, because this government has indeed been vigilant in maintaining the integrity of the social security system, while at the same time ensuring an adequate social safety net.I do draw to your attention that, under present arrangements, we have been discovering that pensioners are increasingly disposing of assets by giving away up to $10,000 a year as a strategy to remain qualified for the aged pension. This annual free area amounts to $600 more than the actual value of the single rate aged pension, meaning that some people are giving away a full year's worth of pension in order to maximise their social security benefits. The strange thing is that Labor has supported the practice, despite the practice usually being against the pensioner's own best interests—not to mention the country's interests.Pensioners and early retirees are not to be blamed. They are being actively advised by financial planners to take this option. Even the CPA manual—with 160 pages on social security—gives tips on how to take this action. Some financial planners are more blatant. There are brochures and leaflets commonly containing tips advising pensioners and retirees on how to maximise social security benefits through gifting arrangements.When the public purse is being raided to pay for the practice, we owe it to taxpayers to ensure that it is kept within a reasonable limit. The Labor Party sees nothing wrong with the loophole and has already flagged that it will vote to maintain the status quo. When you look at their profligate spending during their time in government, you can understand why they might take that attitude. I call on other senators to support a change to these overly generous rules to curtail this financial planning opportunity. It is irresponsible for senators opposite to promote the practice by advocating that older members of the community divest themselves of their retirement nest egg in order to receive relatively small increases in their rate of pension.What this government intends to do is to halve the limit from $10,000 per annum to $5,000 per annum that an individual can give away in a year, in order to stop the misuse of the gifting provisions. We think that figure is reasonable and allows pensioners the flexibility to help out a family member with a home deposit or a wedding, et cetera. It has nothing to do with the family silver, as one ALP spokesman has said. It is to do with financial measures. People can continue to give away larger sums than the $5,000 but, if they do so, they need to do it in the knowledge that they are deemed by the department to have earned income on any amount over $5,000 and it will be taken into account in determining the rate of their pension. That is fair, it is reasonable.We are talking here about non-home owning couples with assets of about $476,000 or home owning couples with assets of about $384,000. The change is fair and equitable. It ensures the social security safety net is there for people who have real need, not for the affluent. How can the ALP possibly endorse that in a social security system? Am I to understand from their objection to this measure that it is their socialist chardonnay mates who are going to be wanting to get the pension?78517851O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Alston representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware that thousands of Australian dairy farmers are anxiously awaiting a response from the government to the restructuring plan prepared by the Australian Dairy Industry Council and designed to help farmers manage further deregulation? Can the minister confirm that the Treasurer, Mr Costello, has so far rejected the tax treatment of the funds provided through the plan as proposed by the dairy industry? Is the minister aware that rejection of this key element would, according to the industry, leave this crucial industry plan unworkable? When will the Howard government respond to this restructuring plan?7851Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As Senator O'Brien rightly points out, deregulation of the dairy industry is a very contentious issue and I am aware of concerns in several states about possible differential treatment. In some respects, probably the most recent starting point is 13 July this year when the Victorian government announced that it would remove all farm gate pricing and supply management arrangements from 1 July 2000. The Victorian government believes that the removal of these arrangements will provide for improved international competitiveness and increased investment in the Victorian industry with the aim of repositioning the industry to maintain current growth rates.Deregulation in Victoria will have flow-on effects in other states. In the short term, other states will be forced to reduce their regulated prices or abandon regulation altogether as Victorian product moves into higher priced markets. In the longer term, it is expected that all markets will move into parity with Victoria, with some premiums remaining to reflect transport costs and other local supply advantages.Clearly, this restructuring or rationalisation of the dairy industry is a very important step forward in terms of ensuring that there are level playing fields and that we do not have artificial boundaries and quota arrangements that advantage people in one area rather than another simply because of the level of protection afforded by individual states. We will continue to pursue the concerns that people have expressed and consider the extent to which there may need to be some further announcements made in respect of the taxation treatment of those matters.7851O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister has a brief on the announcement of the Victorian government on 13 July. Is the minister aware that, according to dairy farmers around the country, deregulation without the package of the sort proposed by the Australian Dairy Industry Council will be a calamity for Victorian dairy farmers? Can the minister confirm that the government was handed the Dairy Industry Council's proposal that I referred to in my question on 20 April, some four months ago? When will this government tell dairy farmers how it will support what is now a multibillion dollar export industry?7852Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The critical thing is to get it right. We do not want to rush to judgment.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—After the Victorian election.LD4Senator ALSTON—I can understand why you are very reluctant to see your Victorian colleagues rush into any judgment. There will be plenty of opportunities for reshuffling those few cards that are left in the pack after 18 September.It is important to note that there is a Senate inquiry currently under way. It will report on 30 September and that will be an opportunity not only to take account of the package put forward by the dairy industry but also to look at some of the other concerns that have been expressed.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice7852785215:08:007852Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludwig today, relating to legal costs concerning the dismissal of the Secretary of the Department of Defence (Mr Barratt).My colleague Senator Ludwig's question went to the issue of the costs of the whole farce that we have been subjected to with the ineptitude of this government. We heard the minister say—and rightly so—that he had to see the costs taxed at this stage. But one knows that this will be at a fair expense to the Commonwealth but at an even greater expense to the Department of Defence. In this case, Minister Moore, who is in disarray himself, has left his department in disarray. It has poor morale, great uncertainty and no leadership. The minister has done very little to inspire people under him within his department. If anything, the minister has destabilised his department rather than engendered any sense of hope that the future will be there for Defence to come through a fairly rigorous program that it is undergoing under the defence reform program.The Barratt affair—if I can call it that at the outset—was a fairly ridiculous affair that the government entered into. The government should not have gone down this path. Instead, it is faced with the question of taxing costs awarded to Mr Barratt in defence of his fundamental right, the right to remain the Secretary to the Department of Defence.If one looks at the history of this, one sees how the whole sorry saga unfolds. In the affidavit of Mr Maxwell William Moore-Wilton, sworn 2 August in the case of Barratt versus John Winston Howard, one finds that on 16 February 1999 Mr Max Moore-Wilton notes that he drafted an aide-memoire:for my own use on the result of my consultations relating to the performance of Secretaries of Departments as a basis for a confidential discussion with the Prime Minister.It is interesting to note in Mr Max Moore-Wilton's affidavit what he had to say to the Prime Minister about the result of the performance testing of the various secretaries of the departments. In his affidavit he says:The Minister of Defence has negative views about his Secretary. I have raised the Minister's criticism with Mr Barratt personally and he has advised that he has met with the Minister to discuss his performance.That is fine. But then he goes on to say:In view of the fact that the Minister has not been Minister of Defence for a substantial period, I consider that there are not sufficient grounds to recommend to you that action be considered in relation to Mr Barratt but the matter of his performance should be reviewed in a year's time. That seems quite reasonable, indeed. If the minister did have some disagreement with Mr Barratt, that is natural and understandable. But in his affidavit Mr Moore-Wilton goes clearly to the point, to say that the Minister for Defence had not been there for a substantial period of time and that anything relating to Mr Barratt's performance should be deferred for one year. But the government could not wait. Or was it the government? Who were playing in the background to get rid of Mr Barratt who, on the surface, was doing a good job in a very difficult portfolio, in trying to manage the defence reform program as well as a number of other programs and other issues that were put on his plate by this government?According to Mr Moore-Wilton's affidavit, the aide-memoire went on to say:The Prime Minister said: "I want time to consider your whole report. I left with him a copy of my aide memoire which he returned to me on 4 March with the annotation on it that appears on Annexure B. It reads:"As discussed with Mr Moore-Wilton". In communications between the Prime Minister and myself such an annotation indicates his general agreement with the document.So there was general agreement with the document that had been supplied by Mr Moore-Wilton. On 19 and 20 March, Mr Moore-Wilton went on tell a number of secretaries of departments at a meeting:The outcome of the review is that the Prime Minister determined that there would be no changes at the present time, and no minister is seeking the replacement of his current secretary.So there was vindication for the position of Mr Barratt remaining as the secretary to the department. Yet what we have are enormous costs now being accumulated and disruption to the department as a result of what this government has done.15:13:007853Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I think it is important for the Senate to remind itself that some of these matters are still to be determined. I think it inappropriate and inopportune for Senator Hogg and others to make some of the comments that they have.Senator Hogg interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Hogg!N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Suffice it to say that, if the Labor Party wants to come into this chamber talking about procedural fairness, it might seek to cast its mind back to when Con Sciacca was a federal minister in the previous Labor government. Because who was the first federal parliamentarian to be stung with an unfair dismissal case? It was a Labor minister, who had voted for the legislation and who had pursued the legislation and said it was good. Who was the first parliamentarian to fall foul of it but a Labor minister from the home state of Senator Hogg. I would suggest to Senator Hogg that, if he wants to undermine Mr Sciacca, he ought to be a bit more subtle about it.Most people can see through this. He undoubtedly knew, in raising this issue, that we on this side would remind the Labor Party of their employment history of personnel whilst they were in government. Let me just remind the Labor Party that, if they want to talk about procedural fairness and other matters of that nature, they may well keep in mind their own record and the record of their previous ministers.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—This is secretaries to departments, Senator.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Oh! Somehow it is different if it is not your own personal employee. My goodness, Senator Hogg, you would not want to tell your union mates that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would you like to address the chair, please, Senator Abetz.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam Deputy President, I would be delighted to address the chair on this matter. But, of course, when I am provoked by injections from Senator Hogg, I do stray from time to time from the standing orders. What Senator Hogg has also done in this motion and with the comments that he has made is tip a bucket over a former Labor Minister for Defence, Mr Bill Morrison, who appeared on TV and radio and basically said that it ought to be the right of any minister to dismiss the head of his particular department.So it is quite interesting what this exercise seems to be about. It seems to be about Senator Hogg and some of his Labor colleagues wanting to embarrass some of his colleagues and former colleagues rather than come to what is fundamentally the issue here, and that is: who runs a government; who should run a department? We are elected to do that. The minister is appointed in this particular circumstance to do that, and it is appropriate for the minister to take charge of his department and require certain standards. That was a call that the government made, and the government does not withdraw from that. However, the government will abide by any Federal Court decision that is made—indeed, that has been made. As I understand it, Mr Barrett has been given even extra time to put his response. I believe the government has behaved in a manner which is appropriate.I simply suggest to Senator Hogg, Senator Ludwig and those who would seek to ask questions about this that it is a bit too early to start asking all these questions. Let us see what the ultimate outcome is. Surely the outcome we would all want for this nation is for Defence to be run in a manner which is appropriate.AW5CARRSenator Carr—No-one's running it.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I know the Labor Party is not running Defence, but I can assure you there is one very competent minister, there is one very competent assistant minister, there is one very competent CDF and others involved in running the department and in running the forces. It is business as usual in relation to matters of defence.The Labor Party do themselves no credit in trying to remind us of the sort of unfair dismissal cases that they themselves faced when they were in government, such as that of Senator Hogg's and Senator Ludwig's colleague from Queensland, Mr Sciacca. (Time expired)15:18:007854Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I have to say that the Liberal Party is an amazing machine. We were just told a minute ago that there is one competent minister—in fact, there are probably a few more than that. But Senator Abetz is much more adept on his feet than the minister that leads the government. When this question was asked today, in view of the prominence that this issue has had in the media in the last couple of weeks I would have thought there would have been a briefing note there and that Senator Hill would have come in and answered the question. You have to give it to Senator Abetz. Three-quarters of an hour later he is down here with the dirt file open. You have to give it to him. He is right into it. Senator Abetz is one of those great performers in this place. He is straight down here. And what does he want to do? Does he want to take up the issue? Does he want to say that this is costing the taxpayers and probably has already cost the taxpayers a lot of money. Not a word of it. No, Senator Abetz wants to rake through the files and find out if someone has ever been sacked before.I have to say to Senator Abetz and to the Senate that this is a government that is proving to be absolutely incompetent at sacking anyone. I remember last year when the Prime Minister was patting Mr Reith—the minister for employment or whatever he calls himself—on the back, because they had managed to sack 5,000 workers on the wharves in this country. He was patting him on the back, saying what a good job he had done. Unfortunately, he had not done as good a job as he thought he had done. He had not done a good job at all, because in fact the courts found, 10 Federal Court judges to one—and I could make some comment about that one dissenting judgment but I will not—that it was incompetently done. So I would have thought that this government would have at least learnt how to deal with one of its top bureaucrats. Not a bit of it. This government does not learn.What happened was that Mr Barrett—and I will come to Mr Barrett's sins in the moment—was sacked. He got a phone call from Mr Max Moore-Wilton, better known around here as—and I think even the Minister for Justice from this chamber called him this—Max the axe. He told Mr Barrett that his services were no longer required but that possibly some overseas posting could be found for him, because this fellow was in fact enticed into the service, as I understand it—he was a friend of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister had asked him to come into the service. So they wanted him to go out with second or third prize. Mr Barrett, as I understand it, made a few counter offers which were not acceptable. The United States is open now. I do not know whether that is a possibility or not. During this week, we have found out that the United States will be available early next year. It may well be that that could be done.But I must say that one of the roasted chestnuts that I have tasted in this place was the comment by Minister Hill this afternoon that he did not know how much, if anything at all, all this legal stuff is going to cost. I reckon that a member ought to go down and consult the registry of charities in the state of New South Wales and find out if Mr Bob Ellicott and Mr Tom Hughes—both QCs—are on that register. I somehow or other doubt that. I doubt that they are registered as charities. I also doubt that all the money that is going to be paid to them is going to wind up back in taxation to the government. If it does, it is a rather unique job creation scheme.VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—That is a slur on their characters.Senator Lightfoot interjecting—ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—You will get your turn, Senator, in a moment. At the end of the day, both of those QCs are doing their job and doing it for a fee. I have no argument with that, Senator. They have done a good job, a competent job and an excellent job for Mr Barratt. If you want to say anything other than that, I will not say it. But they are not going to be doing this for nothing—and neither should they. Indeed, what we were told here today—VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—What about paying their taxes?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I do not know about their tax arrangements; I have no idea, Senator. (Time expired)15:23:007855Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—I want to respond particularly to my friend Senator Quirke and, of course, to Senator Hogg on the issue before us this afternoon. Senator Quirke seems to be preoccupied with how much the legal costs are going to be to the government and the taxpay er with respect to defending the action by Mr Barratt. Whatever the federal High Court decision is—or whatever even more superior courts' decisions are—those costs will be met along the lines of what the courts direct. The government intends to abide by every aspect of the court decisions.I look at what is perhaps part of the problem associated with Mr Barratt—and I am only speculating here, I hasten to say. When I look at costs—when my friend Senator Quirke speaks about legal costs—they are an infinitesimal part of those costs associated with the submarine project, the project designed to bring the then Labor state of South Australia out of its doldrums. We have a rule in this place and in the other place that we do not generally talk about governments' ineptitude with respect to our defence. But just in a generic way I must say that the submarine project is going to prove to be—made so by the former Labor government and by the now Leader of the Opposition in the other place—one of the costliest defence projects in the world, in terms of what we will get.I do not think the opposition has any right, moral or otherwise, to criticise this government for doing what it can to ensure that the people of Australia have a properly functioning defence department. If the Secretary of Defence was deemed in the proper manner not to be suitable, under the guidelines he had to go.Let me say that my friend Senator Quirke also said that he thought there would be a briefing note in here today. We did not know what every question was going to be but we just happened to have a briefing note. That procedure with respect to the dismissal of Mr Barratt was followed meticulously. It was followed as for a complex appointment. It is not a simple appointment of `Come in, have a look, see if you like it; and we will sign you on.' It is not that, and you on the other side know that it is not that.You know that a departmental secretary is appointed by the Governor-General for a fixed term of up to five years and that the Prime Minister and the Public Service Commissioner determine those terms and conditions of appointment under the Public Service Act of 1922. The Remuneration Tribunal determines the salary and allowances under the Remuneration Tribunal Act of 1973. That was followed meticulously. The Governor-General, however, may direct that an appointment be terminated following advice from the Prime Minister. That was followed meticulously, based upon a report to the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—or, in this case, with Mr Barratt—following a report from the Public Service Commissioner. All of that was followed meticulously.There is no suggestion in your argument this afternoon that that was not done. There is no suggestion that, with respect to severance pay, that was wrong. The tribunal has a long-standing and applicable determination that provides compensation when a fixed term appointment is prematurely terminated.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Tell us why.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—The termination provides, Senator, for one-third of a month's salary for each full month of the balance of the fixed term not served, and it is subject to a maximum payment of 12 months salary. Were the determination to be applied to Mr Barratt's circumstances, it would result in a payout of one year's base salary—that is, $250,000—as he has served less than two years of his term, because he was appointed, as I recall, on 31 December 1997.There is no suggestion that that was not followed meticulously. I think that, just like you have with the Federation Fund and like you have with your silly questions this afternoon, trying to draw out 16 allocations of funds that were for the betterment of Australia, you have drawn here a loser again. You are losing again. (Time expired)15:28:007856Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—The government is still trying to sack Barratt after some five weeks.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—`Mr' Barratt—84NLudwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG—Mr Barratt, if you prefer; but from the way that you have been treating him—Senator Carr interjecting—Senator Lightfoot interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!84NLudwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG—It is a matter that started when you put him on in February 1998 for five years. At the rate that you are going in trying to get rid of him, it will be another five years. If we look at what you are trying to do, you are trying dismiss him. There are procedures that you could follow. Senator Lightfoot has alluded to procedures that were followed, but the court apparently does not agree. The court found that Mr Barratt was entitled to procedural fairness. The government, on the other hand, argued—and they argued, I suspect, with all the legal finesse they were able to muster—that they could sack him at their pleasure.WP6LIGHTFOOTSenator Lightfoot—No. That was never it.84NLudwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG—We can take you to the briefing note. I am happy to provide that. It seems that the approach that this government wish to take in respect of dismissals is that they want to be able to dismiss people at their pleasure. A departmental head or a hard-working public servant might also fall under that. But we still find them today bungling that attempt. They have not even managed to do it. The courts have upheld fairness and justice. It does not, in our view, augur well for the effective administration of the Department of Defence. No doubt the minister is finding it difficult to find a replacement. With the record that he has got around his neck, you would expect that there would not be too many starters, unless they have got a bullet-proof vest on.This silly fiasco, which has gone on for quite some time, needs to come to a conclusion. Mr Barratt in his previous job was head of the Business Council in Melbourne, and he was recruited to the Public Service at a much later date. Now he might be able to turn his mind to supporting Labor in ensuring fairness from the Industrial Relations Commission with respect to dismissals so that justice can prevail. Not only did you argue that you could dismiss him at your pleasure but also, when the court did not agree with you, you tried to say that the costs do not follow the event, that Mr Barratt is not entitled to costs. You tried to argue that he should mind his own costs and that you would look after yours. At a time when the defence department needs careful and considered decision making, needs certainty and needs good information in its hands, there is no-one in the top job. This continuing squabbling is not providing any certainty for Defence.What is even more surprising is that Mr Barratt got a pay rise in March of the order of $40,000, as reported in the Sun-Herald of 1 August 1999. Things must have slid downhill pretty quickly—VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—You are wrong.84NLudwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG—You can go to the Sun-Herald of 1 August 1999 and read it for yourself. Mr Barratt had indicated in July his view that everything was going well. There must have been a very fine line between things going very well and things going very badly. What is appalling, in truth, when you stand back and look at this sorry mess, is that the important issues are not being concentrated on, important issues on which the minister has abrogated his responsibilities. No-one is at the helm of the ship and there is plenty of work that needs to be done, like replacing destroyers and fixing the F111s. (Time expired)15:33:007857Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—Many honourable senators who have participated over recent years in inquiries into the Department of Defence or aspects involving the Department of Defence would no doubt have been, like me, very concerned that they did not perhaps get the direct answers that they were looking for. Answers have often been evasive, obscure, irrelevant, voluminous and not to the point. So it is not surprising that the minister has obviously found certain difficulty with his CEO. We acknowledge that Mr Barratt has been recruited from the private sector. Defence is such an important department of state that we had to have a man from a civilian point of view oversighting that and administering it who can get on top of the issues and run the department successfully in the best interests of this country. Quite obviously problems arose because the performance was not up to Minister Moore's high standards. We were not getting the improvements, we were not getting the responses and we were not getting the action that was required, and under the circumstances termination is the only way out.Questions have arisen as to procedural fairness. This particular gentleman is paid an exceedingly high amount of money. In that package are built-in arrangements for extra payment for issues such as—8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—Performance.VJ4Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSON—I will take that comment, because that report on performance pay is not correct. He did not receive that amount, and I think that should be put to rest. Under the Public Service Act, a secretary's appointment can be terminated at any time by the Governor-General on advice from the Prime Minister following a report from the secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He knew that when he signed the contract and he was amply rewarded. That was a risk he took. There are a lot of CEOs who sign similar arrangements, because these fixed term contracts are very common not only in the public sector but in the private sector nowadays.I point out to the opposition that successive governments have understood the legal position to be that natural justice does not apply to such determinations. Prima facie, you may say that that is quite unfair, but, in recognition of such limited tenure and similar issues, secretaries receive a 20 per cent loading, which is now rolled into their base pay. It is quite generous and is something that you and I do not get. There is also an entitlement to a lump sum termination equivalent to one-third of the unexpired period of their term of employment up to a maximum of 12 months pay.For the benefit of honourable senators, I point out that these secretaries are currently employed for terms of up to five years. This is one of a number of fundamental changes to tenure arrangements for secretaries which were made by the previous government, your government, in the years 1984 to 1994. The previous government has also removed secretaries as and when that government chose. The departures of Mr Ron Brown and Mr Graham Evans were quite controversial, as was the resignation of Mr Mike Codd, a great secretary who did much to reform the public sector when secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, when Mr Keating succeeded Mr Hawke. I think that is noteworthy.As I have so few minutes left, I think I should state that the government intends to fully abide by the decision of the Federal Court. The government itself has not made its decision. The secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has actually written to Mr Barratt outlining the reasons for his dismissal. The Secretary to Prime Minister and Cabinet still awaits, I understand, Mr Barratt's response. I have every confidence that Mr Barratt will be extended complete fairness in the terms of the contract, which is not dissimilar to the contracts which you arranged. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Condolences7858785810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 24 August 1999 of Henry Baynton Somer Gullett, Member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Henty from 1946 to 1955.Documents7858785810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—On behalf of the President, I present the report of the 30th Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks, which was held in Fiji on 16-24 July 1999.Bills7858785815:39:007858Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I present further additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in response to its inquiry into the Compensation for Non-economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999.Committees7858785810000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows:Economics References Committee—Participating members:Senator Cook for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Australian Taxation Office from 26 August to 17 September 1999Senator Murphy from 26 August to 2 September 1999Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Participating member: Senator EgglestonRural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Participating member: Senator McGauran.Bills7858r8377858Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.785815:40:007858Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The bill puts in place arrangements to fulfil the agreement reached at the 1999 Premiers' Confer ence on the level and distribution of general revenue assistance to the States and Territories in 1999-2000. The bill also provides authority for the Commonwealth to pay to the States and Territories the revenue it will collect in 1999-2000 under the safety net arrangements which were implemented to protect State and Territory revenues following the 1997 High Court decision, which severely curtailed the States' capacity to raise revenues through business franchise fees.The bill will amend the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994. The existing act covers the provision of financial assistance for 1998-99, with interim arrangements for the continuation of payments for a maximum of six months. The bill extends for a further 12 months the provisions of the act relating to the payment of financial assistance grants and State and Territory entitlements to payments under the safety net arrangements.The general revenue assistance to be appropriated by this bill is about $17.7 billion or around 11.3 per cent of estimated Commonwealth expenses in 1999-2000. Accordingly, these payments constitute a significant element of the Commonwealth Budget and have an important bearing on the spending and borrowing of the public sector as a whole. The States and Territories are able to allocate the funds provided by the Commonwealth under this act according to their own budgetary priorities.In addition, revenue replacement payments to the States under the safety net arrangements are estimated to be $6.8 billion in 1999-2000. The safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth.I turn now to the elements of the bill which give effect to the Commonwealth's funding commitments to the States and Territories.The major part of the assistance provided under this bill is the payment to each State and Territory of a share of the pool of financial assistance grants, which is estimated to be about $17.3 billion in 1999-2000. The distribution of financial assistance grants will be in accordance with the five-year per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The bill updates the per capita relativities accordingly.The States and Territories will be provided with real per capita growth in financial assistance grants in 1999-2000. The per capita element of the real per capita guarantee is conditional on States meeting the terms of the Agreement to Implement the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms. This Agreement also provides for up to $439.1 million in competition payments to the States and Territories in 1999-2000. The views of the National Competition Council will be taken into consideration by the Commonwealth in deciding whether a State or Territory should receive the payments provided under the National Competition Policy Agreement in 1999-2000.The Australian Capital Territory will also receive $13.2 million from the Commonwealth in 1999-2000 in the form of transitional allowances and special fiscal needs. This payment is outside the scope of this bill and has been included in the Appropriation Bills for the 1999-2000 Budget.I turn now to the elements of the bill which relate to the safety net arrangements.The safety net measures introduced by the Commonwealth protect State and Territory revenues following the High Court's 5 August 1997 decision on State business franchise fees. The Commonwealth is using its tax powers to collect the revenue that the States and Territories previously collected by way of business franchise fees on petroleum products, tobacco and alcoholic beverages. The States and Territories acknowledge that this represents a State tax imposed and collected by the Commonwealth at their unanimous request and on their behalf.The proposed amendments provide authority for the Commonwealth to pay the States and Territories the revenue it collects under the safety net arrangements in 1999-2000. These payments are estimated to be $6.8 billion in 1999-2000. A new `per stick' excise regime for tobacco will be introduced from 1 November 1999. However, State safety net shares of tobacco excise will continue to be calculated on the existing excise arrangements. Accordingly, the bill includes a further amendment to the act, so that any variation in the method of calculating duty on petroleum, tobacco and alcohol products will leave the States' entitlement to customs or excise duty, under the safety net arrangements, the same as that due prior to the amendment.The bill also include provisions which return to the States and Territories any tax revenues the Commonwealth might receive under the Franchise Fees Windfall Tax (Collection) Act 1997. This will ensure that State and Territory finances are protected from claims for refunds, on grounds of constitutional invalidity, of past payments of business franchise fees.As noted earlier, the safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth. Revenue replacement payments will simply return to the States and Territories amounts raised by the Commonwealth on their behalf, after allowing for Commonwealth administrative costs.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned. Miscellaneous786015:41:007860Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I move: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.This motion relates to Australian Defence Force personnel and, in particular, the current situation regarding the fringe benefits tax regime as a result of the ANTS package. I have moved this motion because I come from an electorate in which we have a large number of Defence Force personnel—in Darwin and at Tindal. This issue has been raised with me over the last couple of weeks by these people, who believe that this is an issue of actual crisis currently happening within the Defence Force. Some people may or may not be aware that there was a shift many years ago to make Darwin the focal point of Defence Force activities in this country, and certainly Tindal, which is situated just out of Katherine, is the main air take-off base for this country.This issue is before the Senate because it comes as a result of the government's ANTS package, which of course has now been passed and which led to changes in the fringe benefits tax. This means that from July 2000 group certificates will include the grossed up value of fringe benefits received by employees. These will be reported on their annual group certificates. The value of fringe benefits will now be used for any means testing of social security payments and taxation surcharges. It will also be taken into account in determining liability for child support payments.Members of this chamber may well recall that, when this was first introduced some months back, I stood up and successfully moved an amendment to exempt people from the Northern Territory who were living in remote conditions. At the time we argued that this would have repercussions on the numbers and kinds of people that would be attracted to work in remote areas, by virtue of the fact that allowances and conditions that were attached to their jobs were there because of their remoteness and their locality, as opposed to a desire by these people to obtain these conditions and allowances in any kind of salary packaging. In fact, it is all part of their conditions of service and, in a way, it is an enticement or a recruitment mechanism to actually get people into rural and remote Australia.The government recognised that argument and supported our amendment in relation to exempting those people from the FBT arrangements. But the effect on Defence Force personnel of what we have currently before us in relation to the fringe benefits reporting act will be serious and harsh repercussions for these workers. They were not considered when the original bill was drafted and I think the impact that the new legislation will have on the Defence Force personnel is an unintended consequence.Following the passage of the new tax legislation through parliament, and similar amendments to the child support legislation last year, the Australian Taxation Office, under advice from Treasury, made a ruling that Australian Defence Force personnel were to be treated like any other employees and brought within the new arrangements. This will mean that the ADF's unique remuneration system, which is disproportionately distorted by fringe benefits and allowances, will be subject now to the fringe benefits group certificate reporting regime. As a result, the value of fringe benefits will be taken into account, as I said, for social security means test purposes and child support assessment, and for the taxation surcharges which will be levied on the combined taxable income and reportable fringe benefits. The practical outcome is a significant drop in, and in many cases a halving of, the disposable income of about 10 per cent of ADF personnel.But this decision now taken by Treasury is inconsistent with a 1996 Industrial Relations Court ruling. That ruling identified ADF personnel not as a work force in this country that has a normal employee-employer relationship but as a separate and special category of employees, exposed to significantly different and harsh working conditions. In fact, the situation with their employment conditions and recognition is also carried through to their normal determination of wages and conditions through the Remuneration Tribunal, as opposed to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.It also goes against the tradition of previous Labor governments, which treated ADF personnel remuneration with special consideration. I think it is fair to say that, until this government included Defence Force personnel within the scope of the Fringe Benefits Reporting Act, all governments had recognised the distinct and unique nature that Defence Force personnel bring to this country when they put up their hand to serve their country. They are not normal employees; they are in fact servants of the Crown and are subject to a separate and special category of conditions.The rationale in the past, I think, for ADF having special consideration has always been that they are exposed to severe hardships and extreme restrictions compared with other groups of workers in this country. Comparably, their remuneration is fairly poor. They have no access to normal industrial rights. They are prevented from industrial representation and from being union members. There is of course the Armed Forces Federation, which has a very small number of members by comparison with all of the work force, but it is not categorised as a trade union and it does not take its members' concerns before an industrial tribunal or the Arbitration Commission. Strike action by Defence Force personnel is illegal. They have a separate and severely strict justice system. There are compulsory postings. They are on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there is no overtime paid for extra duties. And, last but not least, they are the men and women who are sent to defend this country, who are sent into combat to protect Australia.The fringe benefits, most of which were established under the Labor government, include subsidised housing, free air travel on scheduled RAAF aircraft flights if seating is available and home-garaging of ADF vehicles if a member is on-call. I want to take senators through some of the implications this has on a personal level and then through a summary of what I think has been quite a fiasco in the handling of this Fringe Benefits Tax Reporting Scheme by Minister Moore since 10 August.We have had—and when I say `We' I also talk about the member for the Northern Territory, Warren Snowdon—considerable representation from members in the Northern Territory and from Defence Force people in the Northern Territory. I took it upon myself last week to travel to Katherine to meet people at Tindal. They handed me a letter, and I want to quote from it because I think it is important to get a feel for how I think Defence Force people are feeling about this, the urgency which they want this dealt with and, I suppose, the sincerity with which they want the government to treat it. The letter from this person at Tindal says:Postings to the Tindal location have always been difficult to fulfil. This is my second tour and without these traditional entitlements many members and myself posted here would opt for a discharge instead of placing their family or themselves in a financial disadvantage.A particular benefit that comes under this regime in relation to the Northern Territory is the remote locality travel leave. This:Is an annual free travel entitlement based on family structure offset to the nearest capital city ie. Adelaide. Such entitlement exists because Darwin still cannot provide adequate hospital facilities enjoyed by eastern coast cities.They also enjoy an airconditioning allowance, and if you have ever gone anywhere near Katherine and Tindal in what we call `the wet season', you would enjoy nothing more after two weeks out in the bush than to come back to an airconditioned house. The letter states:A small proportion of Defence Establishments falls under this umbrella. However, Tindal as the frontline Airpower location will not receive any exemption to omit this allowance as an assessed FBT allowance.Regarding the Defence Housing Subsidy:Service personnel whom are married or maintain dependants are entitled to married quarters. These MQ's are administered by DHA—the Defence Housing Authority—and members pay approx. 48% of the market rate, with Defence remunerating the remainder.There has been quite a deal of pressure put on this government by the Department of Defence. I have before me a submission by the Department of Defence to Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office, relating to the fringe benefits tax issues. Let me quote some of the aspects of the executive summary, where even the Department of Defence do not agree with the actions of this government and the way in which they have treated our Defence Force personnel. The summary says:We, the Department of Defence, seek exemption from the FBT group certificate reporting requirements for specific conditions of service paid to our staff solely due to the nature of Defence employment.Here we have the Department of Defence, in a submission to Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office, seeking an exemption from this fringe benefits tax reporting requirement and recognising and stressing to this government that the group certificate reporting requirements are solely due to the nature of Defence employment. They go on to say:Further, we request that these conditions of service be reviewed by you to confirm whether they should be subject to FBT at all.The submission goes on to say:Defence does not take lightly this request for exemption from the FBT group certificate reporting requirements for specific conditions of service.There is an admission by the defence department that this is not easy, that they are not treating this flippantly. They state that they do not take this request lightly. They go on to say: This Submission focuses only on those conditions that are affected by regional impacts, and the Australian Government's requirement that we maintain a presence in a wide range of locations throughout Australia in order to prevent or defeat the use of armed force against Australia or its National interests.It goes on to say:We request our concerns be addressed by a reporting exemption in a specific regulation, as allowed for in the Act.There are many examples throughout the submission where the Department of Defence tries to impress upon the Taxation Office and Treasury the uniqueness of the conditions under which Defence Force personnel put their hand up and say they will serve this country and what they expect in return for this. The submission goes on to say:The conditions of service for which Defence seeks group certificate reporting exemption are longstanding provisions associated with the special nature of Defence service, which differs substantially from those in the general community or other public sector employment.In some cases, the conditions of service were determined long before the introduction of the FBT, they are not available to other members of the ADF or civilian defence employees and they are not part of any salary sacrifice arrangements. They go on to say:We reiterate the conditions of service are a direct consequence of Defence's operational requirements.I do not think you can get it clearer than that. You cannot get it more plainly than that. In black and white, the Department of Defence has stressed upon the government that these are people who are not subject to the same employee conditions as anyone else. They are a particular and unique category of our citizenship who put their hands up to defend this country at any time of the day, any week of the year. For that they will now be penalised through the introduction of this fringe benefits tax reporting regime.There is an example that is close to my own electorate. This submission talks about a whole range of allowances, including housing assistance, airconditioning assistance, discharge removals, discharge travel, the removal of non-service spouse on the breakdown of a marriage, removals in the same locality, child-care reimbursement allowance, compassionate leave travel, remote locality leave travel, reunion travel, and the Defence Service Home Loan Scheme. The list goes on and on. In relation to the Defence housing, the submission says:. . . it should be noted that some Defence "remote" areas, and thus high cost areas—such as Katherine and Darwin—are not considered remote for FBT purposes and, therefore, have no concessional valuation treatment. The most obvious example is in Darwin.What have we got as a response from this government? I suppose the question could be asked of Minister Moore: what is he good for?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He is good for destroying the defence department.7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN—That is exactly right, Senator Faulkner. When this issue was raised in the House of Representatives on 10 August, his response was that this government would review the situation. That is all. He said, `We will take it on board and we will review the situation.' In the meantime, there are Defence Force personnel around this country who are questioning why they opt to take on this career and why they seek to relocate their families to places such as Darwin, Katherine and remote areas of this country. There are people who are questioning what they are prepared, for our sakes, to give up in the line of duty.Minister Moore said he was going to review the situation. What did we find after he had reviewed the situation? That he had decided to exempt housing. He decided that one thing could be dropped off the list, and that was the housing allowance. On 11 August he made an announcement that the housing allowance will essentially be exempted from fringe benefits tax reporting provisions. My response to Ministers Moore and Scott is that their decision to exempt only housing assistance from the fringe benefits reporting regime is a half-baked response. It is almost as though it had been flippantly put on the list of the many things these people are entitled to. It was as though the minister said, `The first one off the list will be housing, but I am not too worried about the rest of them.' We say that this is not good enough. We are calling for all of these conditions to be exempt.I believe that the government has been half-hearted in protecting the Australian Defence Force personnel and their conditions of service. The Defence Personnel Chief Executive's instructions list more than 45 allowances and benefits, other than the housing assistance, which will be treated as gross income for the fringe benefits tax reporting requirements.In question time some weeks ago in the House of Representatives, Minister Scott cited the example of a general not having the fringe benefits tax on his personal car treated as income for the new fringe benefits tax reporting requirements. But that just ignores the fact that the vast majority of the allowances are, in places, to compensate service personnel for the unique circumstance of service life. It might come as a surprise that the majority of the people in the Defence Force are not generals and they are not given cars for private use.This government does not want to understand the personnel in the Defence Force, is not prepared to recognise the uniqueness of the conditions under which they work and is not prepared to recognise the difficulties that many of these families now go through and put up with, and the sacrifices they make, to defend this country. We now have a government that not only mismanages the Defence Force—by virtue of the saga we have had over the recent sacking of its leader and chief—but also is prepared to turn its back on Defence Force personnel and not treat them with the distinction and the uniqueness that they deserve when they put their hands up to defend this country.16:01:007863Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—It is a delight to lead on behalf of the government on this motion put before us by Senator Crossin and the Labor Party. I congratulate Senator Crossin for involving herself and taking an interest in matters related to the Defence portfolio. But I invite her to first acquaint herself with the facts before she seeks to involve herself in debates of this nature. The motion that is before us is in fact a slap-dash motion with two separate errors in it. Paragraph 1 has the word `the' missing and paragraph 2 has an extra `that' in it. As a result, it does not in fact even read correctly. But I have to say that it is, unfortunately, not only a punctuation problem with this motion; the really serious defect is the lack of substance in it. The Liberal and National parties have a very proud record of looking after Defence generally and, in particular, the personnel. In fixing the devastated economy that we inherited in 1996, we dealt with a lot of budget matters—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Paul Barratt?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—`Pork-barrelling' says the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who is not even sitting in his correct seat.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I said `Paul Barratt'.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—We quarantined Defence from any federal government cuts. The Labor Party—in particular, the left wing—were strongly opposed to the quarantining of Defence, yet here they are trying to suggest that they are the champions of Defence. The reality is that, whenever they have been in government, they have treated Defence with a degree of sufferance on the basis of, `Yeah, we have to put up with it; we can't get rid of it, and we will give them as little funding as we can get away with.' The personnel within Defence know quite well how supportive we are of Defence personnel generally and in relation to the Defence portfolio.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You've presided over the greatest crisis in morale in the history of the ADF.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate continually interjecting out of his seat. I would ask you to invite him to abide by the two standing orders that he is breaching: one, by interjecting; two, by doing so from not within his seat.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Order! Senator Faulkner, it is disorderly to interject when not in your seat. If you wish to interject—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I'll return to my seat and interject from there.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam Acting Deputy President, you were in fact invited in my point of order to also remind the honourable senator that it is disorderly to interject. I would ask that, if it should become necessary in the future, you might remind him of that also.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator, thank you for those comments. I will note them.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Good.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—But I would also remind you that, if you do wish to refer to a point of order, it is useful to preamble your comments under that heading.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Fool!YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Madam Acting Deputy President, you are not going to let that go, are you?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order: seeing as you refuse to request your leader to withdraw—Senator Faulkner interjecting—N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—You know, Madam Acting Deputy President, that it is disorderly to refer to a fellow senator as a `fool', and I would invite you to ask the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to withdraw the comment.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, it is unparliamentary—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Acting Deputy President, I do not know whether it is or not, but I certainly withdraw it. I take a point of order: I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Boswell has been continuously interjecting. He has moved in and has tried to muscle in on someone else's seat. I don't know whose it is.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—He looks very good on the front bench.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—He would. He seems to fit in quite well.Senator Boswell interjecting—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—No, you can't; I'm taking a point of order.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—I am supposed to be in that seat that he is speaking from. Unless I sit on his knee, I cannot be in the right seat.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Bos, you have my permission. Why don't you sit on his knee? You can't interject from that seat.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Have you finished your point of order, Senator Faulkner?5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam Acting Deputy President, my point of order is a serious one. I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Boswell is being disorderly. He may well have been provoked by Senator Abetz, who seems to be wasting a lot of time in his own contribution—but given he has nothing to say about the matter it is hardly surprising. I would ask you to be vigilant about Senator Boswell who is, I think, testing the patience of every senator in the chamber.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The standing orders apply equally to both sides of this chamber. I have already reminded senators that it is not orderly to interject from outside of their ordinary seats.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—I will return to the substance—and that is using the term very loosely indeed—and deal with the four paragraphs. It is correct to say that ADF personnel do work under unique and, indeed, difficult conditions. In fact, we have continually recognised that. The ADF personnel have been treated by this government and previous governments of all persuasions in a special way because of the special service that they render to our country. Whilst it may be difficult for some people to realise or understand those special circumstances in times of peace, the reality is that they are our front line of defence and they have made a vow—in fact, taken an oath—to put their lives on the line to defend our country. As a result, they are special people within our community. They deserve special recognition for that, and governments need to be mindful of the difficult circumstances under which they operate.Indeed, it is very disruptive to family life not only within their own family but also within the broader family community of ADF members. It really is a very difficult life. In this place, Madam Acting Deputy President, we often think that our throats are cut because we are away from our family so often, but those who serve, especially in the Navy and in other areas of the forces, have to put up with even greater absences from their families than we do.That was brought home to me just recently when I made a number of visits, such as visits to Endeavour Cottage at Latham Park naval complex near Kingsford Smith, to RAAF Williamtown and, in my own home state of Tasmania, to Dowsings Point, where I had the opportunity of speaking with spouses of Defence personnel. The message came through loud and clear—not from the Labor Party opposition but from the personnel themselves—that they had certain difficulties with the implementation of aspects of our fringe benefits tax. As a government we took that on board and have made, I believe, the appropriate adjustments that they were wanting to have made.Senator Crossin made the direct link between our tax policies and the way that that would have applied to Defence personnel. With respect to Senator Crossin, let me direct her attention to what the Labor Party policy was at the last election in relation to fringe benefits tax. For Defence personnel, it was absolutely identical to the one we took to the election. So do not let them come here and suggest that somehow they know about the difficulties that this particular policy might mean for Defence personnel. Indeed, it was the Labor Party that refused to exempt Defence as an organisation from the fringe benefits tax when they introduced the legislation in 1986. They went to the October 1998 election with the same widening of the fringe benefits reporting legislation that they now claim they are opposed to.They voted for the fringe benefits tax legislation which they now say they oppose. They moved no amendments when this legislation was before the parliament, and at no time did they state any intention to exempt ADF personnel. Indeed, the Labor Party on this issue remind me of that American adven turer, Robert Bogucki. They are lost in a policy wilderness not really knowing where they are going or what they are doing but hoping that somehow, if they wander along far enough, they might stumble across something. As Robert Bogucki was found by a muddy waterhole trying to sustain himself, so the Labor Party have been found at a pretty dry, muddy watering hole in relation to policy. (Quorum formed)It is most flattering that Senator Faulkner should invite so many other senators into the chamber to listen to what is a very good contribution on behalf of the government. I can see no other reason that Senator Faulkner would have called the quorum; I am sure it would not have been just to waste the time of the Senate. The simple fact is that the Australian Labor Party went to the last election with exactly the same fringe benefits tax policy in relation to Defence personnel. They voted for that legislation, and now they are seeking to assert somehow that they were never part of it.The reality is that housing assistance makes up two-thirds of Defence's total fringe benefits tax. So, by getting rid of that, we have basically dealt with the substantial problem. It is a situation in Defence where people are often posted to outlying areas. They have no say in their posting; they have to follow the request that is made and, as a result, I believe it is appropriate that the government has made the decision that it has.It was interesting to listen to Senator Crossin, because she complained that somehow the new system will impact on people's social security payments and entitlements. As I understand it, reading from page 60, `A fairer tax system with no GST'—which was the Labor Party policy of the last election—we were told:A Labor government will reform the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) to . . . include on group certificates the grossed-up value of fringe benefits for income tested surcharges and government benefits where these are in excess of $1,000, and include the non-grossed-up value of a wider range of fringe benefits for—guess what purpose—social security purposes . . . They then said:these will be included on employees' group certificates by employers . . . That was Labor Party policy, and in fact they voted for it. It is really, therefore, quite hypocritical for the Labor Party to come in here and try to dissociate themselves from a policy that they themselves had been embracing.It is interesting to note that Senator Crossin and Mr Martin, the shadow minister for defence, somehow think that it is trivialising the matter whether a General's car being used for private purposes ought to be considered to be a fringe benefit. I invite the Labor Party speakers on this motion to in fact address that. Do they believe that those sorts of benefits should be included on the group certificate because, quite clearly from Mr Martin's press release, he believes that they should? And, if that is the case, how on earth can you have paragraph 4 in your motion which calls on the government to `exempt all ADF personnel from the FBT reporting requirements'? Why should they all be exempted when you in fact acknowledge that some of them should be included?This is a clear and classic case of Labor's schizophrenia when it comes to policy. They really do not know where they are in relation to these important matters. We say those that should continue to be reported are clearly personal benefits such as private use of Commonwealth cars; cheap home loans; free flights on Defence aircraft—albeit not for personal reasons such as when somebody has died; semi-official phones; HECS payments; recreational free travel; spouse accompanied travel; property; and prizes and gifts. These are not unique to ADF personnel. Many are available to civilian public servants such as education assistants, et cetera, and they will all be reported. In fact many things, such as the free or cheap air flights that Ansett and Qantas staff receive, are now reportable on group certificates. Why should it be different in relation to Defence aircraft? I invite the Australian Labor Party to deal with those issues.We are trying to ensure a taxpayer's total remuneration is taken into account when assessing an individual's liabilities for payments like child support or surcharges, or when assessing the need for government benefits like family allowance—and this is important. The principle is that those members of our community with the capacity to contribute fairly to our taxation base should do so, and government benefits should be targeted at those in greatest need. Indeed, those words are virtually identical to what you can read in the Labor Party's fringe benefits tax policy that they took to the last election—and they voted for that legislation in this parliament.We as a government are very proactive in supporting our Defence personnel. We are concerned about them being appropriately looked after. We have been very anxious to make sure that they are looked after, and we have indicated that we are prepared to look at issues when and as they arise and deal with them. There are allowances and benefits that are already exempt or not reportable, such as airconditioning allowance, compassionate travel, home purchase and sales expense allowance for all but first purchase and sale on discharge, most removals, transferee travel and accommodation, entertainment, car parking and use of cars for official purposes. So we are looking after Defence personnel. (Quorum formed)The good thing is that I can report to the Senate that the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, in a media release dated 20 August 1999, welcomed our decision and made this very telling point:Like all Australian taxpayers, ADF personnel should have allowances that are consistent with the rest of the community reported on their Group Certificates.The point to be made is that, if it is something unique in relation to service in the defence forces, it should be exempted, and that is what the government has said, especially in the area of housing. The airconditioning allowance has also been exempted because it is particularly unique to service in the defence forces. But where the defence forces receive allowances and benefits that are not necessarily unique to the defence forces, it is appropriate that those allowances and benefits be reported on their group certificates and that they pay tax accordingly, or indeed—this is an important aspect—that any social security responsibilities or child support responsibilities be undertaken by that individual.What will happen under Senator Crossin's proposal is that—and this is often the case—the separated women at home with the kids will be denied extra funding through the Child Support Scheme because the blokes in the forces will be able to avoid their child support responsibilities. Some of these benefits are paid to them, in effect, in lieu of a salary, and therefore they can avoid their parental responsibility. I would have thought that Senator Crossin, being a female senator in this place, would have been severely condemnatory of any system that did not give women in particular sufficient funds to assist them in bringing up their children. This motion is not a motion of substance. It has errors in it, both in punctuation and substance. I invite the Senate to reject it.16:27:007867Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—Having just heard Senator Abetz in this debate, I wonder why he wasted our time in demanding that we call his colleagues in to listen to him, because unfortunately, Senator Abetz, I do not think you have some of your facts quite correct.As far as Labor Party policy is concerned, it has never been part of Labor Party policy, as I am informed by the shadow minister, to have any contribution to FBT in terms of Australian Defence Force personnel placed on the group certificate. Apparently, this is a line that is being peddled by Minister Scott to try to cover up the mess that the government has made once again in this important area.As I understand the position, there are only two items that thus far have been exempted from FBT being shown on the group certificate. Primarily, they are the issues of housing, which Senator Abetz raised, and funerals. Whilst the housing item contributes significantly to the FBT that Defence pays in respect of some of its personnel, there are nonetheless a significant range of other items that are involved which do attract FBT and which, when placed on the group certificate, will place Defence Force personnel at a disadvantage which they have not so far experienced.It just so happens that in recent times a number of us visited Defence establishments in Queensland—within about the last three weeks. I have been to the Enoggera Army Barracks, the Lavarak Army Barracks in Townsville and the RAAF base in Townsville. Quite interestingly, all the personnel, whether they were in the ranks or were officers, greeted us with the same chord, which was, `Do something about this FBT. It is not something that it is fair to levy upon us.'I will come to the point that Senator Abetz raised. He tries to make out that these people in the Defence Force should be and can be treated exactly the same as every other person out there in the real world. Of course, their world is quite different. They are committed to a very important task, that task being the defence of this nation, and they are placed under different stresses and different circumstances than many other people in the so-called normal work force.As part of the visit to the various barracks that I have outlined, I also had the opportunity through the Defence Community Organisation to meet with the spouses of serving personnel in Brisbane and Townsville. And surprise, surprise! What did one find? They were equally miffed by the fact that the group certificates of their spouses would be attracting the amount for FBT. This will disadvantage these people who, in many cases, already consider themselves disadvantaged because of dislocation primarily from family and from the extended family in particular. And in many circumstances they do not enjoy the most gracious of climates, particularly in the hot months in the northern parts of Australia in places such as Townsville and Darwin.I hope to have another chance to meet with defence personnel in Darwin in the not too distant future. I am sure that they will come up with exactly the same complaint about what the government are doing or what the government have done. They will undoubtedly express their dismay at what the government have done in this particular area. The voice of the defence personnel spouses, whilst not necessarily heard loudly throughout the community, undoubtedly is heard loudly throughout the political processes and is also carried very well through the Defence Community Organisation. The government need to pay attention to this very important group of people, because there needs to be stability for the spouses as well as for serving Defence personnel. They are clearly upset by the application of the FBT to certain benefits that they see making their lifestyle bearable in what could otherwise be quite unbearable circumstances.On 25 August, after the government did the backflip in respect of housing and also funerals, an open letter signed by the Shadow Minister for Defence and the Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel was sent to the Minister for Defence and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. It is worth while looking at some of the issues raised in that open letter. They say:Our contact with Defence personnel has clearly revealed a serious morale problem which cannot be ignored. Failure to act will immediately affect Australia's military capabilities.These people do not have to be pandered to, but they do need to be content in the challenges that they face. They go on to say in the open letter to the Minister for Defence and the minister assisting:We are particularly concerned at the ruling by the Tax Office that members of the ADF are the same as all other employees. As you would be aware, this flies in the face of the evidence and the way in which previous Governments have treated defence personnel who serve this nation.That is the key. There is a difference. They are different and you cannot now go lumping them into the same barrel as every other group.YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—We don't.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Well, I will come to that in a minute. It goes on to say:What other group of employees are unable to access normal industrial laws and processes, are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, are never paid overtime, are subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act, are compulsorily posted and can be sent to war at any time?There are people in these defence forces who are on 24-hour readiness. There are those who are on seven days. There are those who are on 28 days. There are no people on similar levels of readiness out there in the general public. It is a nonsense. It does not exist. So to say that Defence personnel are the same as others out there in the community is not true at all. The open letter goes on to say:The conditions of service that currently apply to members of the ADF were put in place in order to compensate them for the inherent hardships of service life and their conditions of employment. They are not fringe benefits or perks and the public realises this.The open letter to the ministers goes on:From advice that personnel have received from the ADF, it is clear that many face increased child support and superannuation surcharge liabilities and reduced entitlements to family payments as a result of the requirements that fringe benefits are reported on an individual's taxation group certificate.One can see from this that there is an appeal being made to the Minister for Defence and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence to address this issue in a realistic way, not to try to sweep it under the carpet and not to try to ignore it.With the modern age of emails and computers, we have all received a number of emails on this particular subject, none more so than me. It is worth while looking at the sentiments as expressed by one of the persons who corresponded with me. This person says:1. It is with great concern to myself and my family, on the effect that the fringe benefits tax (FBT) will have on us. I am currently serving in Sydney, and because of personal reasons, my family (wife and four children) are required to live in Cairns. I have been told that the FBT on the married quarters and the single accommodation that I occupy—and I note that that has been addressed by the government—. . . could amount to as much as $22,000.00. On top of this, there will be FBT on remote locality leave, service vehicles, entitled travel—contrary to what Senator Abetz's advice is—airconditioning allowance, recreational leave travel, plus numerous others. These few FBT's will easily amount to approximately another $14,000.00, adding another $36,000.00 to my grossed up salary.If you take out the accommodation that this person writes to me about of some $22,000, $14,000 is even then not an insignificant amount of money that will be included in this person's group certificate. He goes on to say:2. This will in turn affect my family in the following areas:a. Family paymentb. Youth allowancec. Childcare assistanced. Liability for superannuation contributionse. Liability for medicare surchargef. And liability for child support—The person does have a sense of humour in spite of being faced with these extra charges. He adds in brackets:(if my wife and I are ever separated).In the face of adversity, there is at least a little humour in this letter. He continues:3. The only positive at the moment, is that my wife and I are still married, if we did separate I would be in the same position as many other members of the Defence Force, forced to resign because of this FBT!That is not contrived. If one looks at the leader page that came with it, one will see that it got widespread distribution throughout the House of Representatives and the Senate, regardless of people's political persuasion in this place or the other place. One can only say that it is being felt out there. What I found when I travelled around Defence Force bases recently meeting Defence Force personnel was that there is grave concern about what is happening and what is being done by the government in this area.I will now address some of the issues that are attracting fringe benefits tax. I quote from a document from the Defence Force and headed `Chief executive instructions—part 5, annex A to chapter 5':ITEMS WHICH ATTRACT A FRINGE BENEFITS TAX LIABILITYThe following, listed in order of liability magnitude, are payments, allowances or benefits provided by Defence to its employees or former employees that have been identified as being partially or fully subject to FBT.The first one on the list is housing. That has been addressed; I concede that. The second one reads:Living Away From Home Allowance (Defence FBT Manual-chapter 9) - Continuing Overseas Allowance (COA)—remember that this is an internal Defence document—- Living Out Allowances (LOA) and Living Out Away From Home Allowance (LOAFHA)- Overseas Living Allowance (OLA)- Child Supplement Allowance- Reunion Supplement AllowanceExpense payments (Defence FBT Manual-chapter 7)- Entitlement travel- discharge travel- annual recreation leave travel- leave-other travel- remote locality leave travel- remote locality family leave travel- reverse remote locality leave travel- reunion travel- student reunion travel- spouse emergency travelThere is a whole range of services which are very much part and parcel of defence life and which they do not see as a perk or a lurk but as an unalienable right and something which should not be subjected to FBT. Yet in Defence's own documentation, it lists those as items which will be subject to and attract FBT. But the list has not stopped; there are three pages of these things put out by the Department of Defence. The list continues:- Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) payments- Transfer benefits- post transfer visits- allowance for sale of land- long term Temporary Accommodation Allowance- education costs allowance- removals at time of retirement- Defence Home Owners Scheme- Other allowances- child education in Australia allowance- air conditioning allowance- extra tuition expenses- removal related child care reimbursement allowance- Semi official phones in private residences- Spouse accompanied travel - Removals expenditure- termination of service removals- change of domestic statusAnd so it goes on. There is a very long list, which Senator Abetz has obviously not had made available to him. I think someone should make it available to someone in the government so that they will have some idea of the extent of the application as seen by the Department of Defence. It should not be something cobbled together by me or someone else; it should be a Defence document. There is a wide range of services and a wide range of issues that will attract an FBT.Senator Abetz's answer to that is, `Oh, well, we've taken care of the big item. We've taken care of housing.' So what? There are other items which will affect the lifestyle of people in the defence forces right throughout Australia. I think the government should not be treating this as a political stunt. It is a genuine attempt to look at an issue that has been raised in visits that have been undertaken by me and my colleagues when we have met with defence personnel.Without going through the whole list, it is worth while just looking at one other email I received, which I think sums up this whole issue. It is an email addressed to senators—some of my colleagues on the other side would have access to it. It says:The new fringe benefits tax legislation that has been introduced in April this year, (we have only just been made aware of it, and that alone is cause for concern)—the email is dated 6 August—is causing a huge amount of concern in the Defence Community. I am a leading Seaman Combat System Operator in the RAN, and would like to draw all of your attentions to the devastating effect these new laws place on the people who risk their lives defending our beloved country, whether that be in times of peace or war.The writer goes on:If none of you are familiar with the new legislation, or the impact that this will have, that goes to show exactly how highly regarded it seems, we are to you. If you are aware, why was this allowed to be passed?The email proceeds:Please raise your voices as members of our community who are there to better the lives of each of us and look after us, the obedient men and women who love our country and will if need be die for it, if sanctioned by you, the Government, to go to war.(Time expired)16:47:007871McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I also rise to take up the debate that the opposition has raised in general business. The motion before us is not all bad, I can say. We reject it as a whole, but of course part (a) of Senator Crossin's motion we cannot dispute. It says 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;I think the house has consensus on that. We support it. I should add that, particularly in the rural and regional areas, the economic and social benefits that the Australian Defence Force brings to a community is well known. I cite the example of the city of Sale where the now long-time RAAF air base brings employment, prestige and identity to the area—and an economic stimulus, as I mentioned, to say the least. So we support part (a) of Senator Crossin's motion.But this government should and does allow for the special circumstances that the ADF personnel live under, especially the fact that, as previous speakers have highlighted, they need to move around the country more than any other profession or job would require. They are unique in that aspect and we do recognise it. I cannot think of any other profession in which people have to move around to meet the requirements of their job. For that reason, this government in particular has recognised their unique circumstances—no less than in the 1999 budget, where this government specifically targeted the unique circumstances of Defence personnel.These are some of the budget measures we undertook in our last budget. For example, we enhanced the operation of the Defence Home Owner Scheme by doubling the maximum subsidised loan to $80,000, or to $160,000 where spouses have a joint entitlement, by reducing the eligibility period for a subsidised loan from six to five years and by making subsidised loans available to active reservists after a qualifying period of eight years effective service. Another initiative by the government in its 1999 budget was to establish the Defence Community Organisation to provide effective and efficient support to defence members and their families. Another initiative was the ADF spouse employment initiative, which will ensure that ADF spouses are provided with a range of measures to reduce employment difficulties caused by their mobile lifestyle.So you can see that this government does recognise and has recognised the unique working circumstances of our Defence personnel—and their spouses and their families. And that should be the case. Needless to say, through all our budgets since first coming into government in 1996 we have recognised the special position of our Australian Defence Force. In fact, it needs to be said that we quarantined the whole defence budget from cuts. Anyone who can remember back to the 1996 budget knows just how tough that budget was. No department got away without suffering cuts so that we could reduce the legacy of the budget deficit of some $10 billion. But Defence was the only department that did not suffer a cut. Why? Because we recognised—particularly, I should say, the Prime Minister recognised—the worth of the defence forces. Sure, there were internal efficiencies created within that budget but, unlike any other department, Defence was not subjected to cuts. So Senator Crossin failed to recognise this government's contribution to our defence forces as a whole.In the area of fringe benefits tax, which is taking up the might of this particular debate, the principle that I have just outlined from this government has been upheld. On 19 August, in a joint statement by Minister for Defence John Moore and the Hon. Bruce Scott, the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, it was announced that the housing assistance provided to defence force personnel in Australia would be `totally exempted from FBT reporting'—a decision that quite obviously points out that the federal government recognises the unique circumstances of the ADF. The government's decision reflects the fact that the Defence Force provides housing assistance to personnel not as part of their remuneration package but to allow us to send ADF personnel wherever they are required to serve. By totally exempting ADF members' housing assistance from the reporting measures, the federal government has addressed the primary concern of ADF families. That was their primary concern, and that was some 70 to 80 per cent of the tax they were paying anyway.I was intrigued by Senator Hogg's speech just prior to mine when he read out email after email in regard to submissions he had had from Defence Force people complaining about the FBT reporting requirements. He let slip that those emails were in fact dated 6 August or at least prior to 19 August, when the statement that I have just read out was made. Of course they were lobbying very hard to have an exemption made in relation, particularly, to housing assistance. He read them out and failed to tell the Senate that these were lobbying attempts prior to the government's decisions. Well, we have made that decision now. On 19 August we made the decision to exempt the defence personnel housing assistance program from FBT. So I would have to say that Senator Hogg's contribution here is outdated, just like all their other contributions—basically outdated.I would like to read some of the emails that followed this government's decision, to which I hope Senator Hogg will listen. I hope that he is listening to the internal television coverage, because he was less than frank with this Senate when he read out his emails. Let me read some out from 19 August, the day the government's decisions were made. I would say that these were most likely written by the same people who had been emailing Senator Hogg in their lobbying attempts to have the government make a decision and, when we made the decision, they decided to email us and thank us. Here are just some of the emails that were received by the government:Thank you for caring. I have just seen the media release on the ADF housing FBT exemption. This decision will make a significant difference to many ADF families. A second email read:Dear Sir,Thank you and your team for the work towards the FBT.This is from 19 August, Senator Hogg and those on the other side—not from 6 August or whatever date Senator Hogg failed to put on his previous emails. These are the thankyous after our decision, and so you really are making pretty cheap political points, beating up a general business time into something it just is not. The feeling just is not there as it was prior to this government's decision. Let me read another email:Sir,Thank you for your personal efforts in having the housing assistance exempt from FBT reporting. Thank you for both Karen and I.That is obviously his wife. He goes on:I have just got of the phone to Colonel Steve Jones from LC. He has requested that I pass on the thanks of all the LC for the outcome.I have to admit that I do not know what `LC' stands for.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Lieutenant Colonels—the top of the tree.WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Thank you. It goes on:He will be putting this in writing to General Dunn and Rob Tonkin.So you can see that the government have been congratulated and recognised for the decision they have made, but not by those on the opposite side: they still think they can make a big issue out of this when it is simply is not there.It should be noted that there are very many other Defence allowances and benefits already exempt. I would like to read some out that are inclusive of the housing assistance package. There is the air-conditioning allowance, compassionate leave, home purchase and sales expense allowance for all but first purchase and sale on discharge, most removals, transferee travel and accommodation, entertainment, car parking and use of cars for official purposes. These also are exempt from reporting.However, the government's philosophical or policy position is that we of course have to take into consideration the very special role and conditions of the ADF, and that has been said. ADF personnel are taxpayers and they see what they do as a job—be it far more patriotic than most other jobs. Nevertheless, it is a job for them, and they are taxpayers. So they are open also to the tax advantages that normal income taxpayers would be open to anyway. So I remind the house that these particular members of the defence forces, those on income, will in fact be able to take advantage of the government's $13 billion income tax cuts, which are a result of the tax reform package.It is worth reminding the house that the effect of the $13 billion will be that 80 per cent of Australians—and that probably includes all of the ADF personnel—will be paying on average 30c in the dollar or less in income tax. That is the effect of the tax advantage, and it needs to be noted that Defence personnel also will be taking advantage of those very welcome tax cuts.Equally, we believe that there are clear personal benefits in being a member of the Defence Force, so these clear personal benefits should also be taxed. These are: private use of their Commonwealth cars, free flights on Defence aircraft, semi-official phones, HECS payments, recreational free travel, spouse accommodated travel, property prizes and gifts and all those sorts of matters. They are not unique, of course, to the ADF personnel. Many benefits such as those I have just read out are available to civilians and public servants. Education assistance, semi-official phones and spouse accommodated travel are all taxed for the civilian public servant. Therefore, we believe it is fair and equal that the defence forces also be taxed on their clear personal benefits.Many of that list that I just read out are available to private employees. Ansett and Qantas staff receive subsidised flights that are reported on their group certificates. It has to be asked: why shouldn't the defence forces also have to report them when there is a clear personal benefit and when it is not attached to the position or, as we have conceded, to the unique conditions that Defence personnel must bear. Bank staff get cheap home loans and have to report them as personal benefits on their group certificates. So too should the ADF personnel. The intention of the FBT reporting legislation is to increase the fairness of the Australian taxation system for all taxpayers. It is designed to ensure that the taxpayer's total remuneration is taken into account when assessing individual liabilities for payments like child support or surcharges or when assessing the need for government benefits like family allowances. The principle is that those members of our community with a capacity to do so should contribute fairly to our taxation base and that government benefits should be targeted at those in greatest need. This is something you would think the other side would support. In fact, they do—they voted for the legislation. We all know their record. They refused to exempt Defence as an organisation for FBT when they first introduced FBT in 1986. You went to the October 1998 election with a policy of widening FBT reporting legislation that you now oppose in relation to the defence forces. You voted for the FBT legislation that you now oppose.It should also be noted that the government is still considering certain aspects of benefits for the Australian defence forces that we have not ruled out as yet. We are still discussing the status of a number of allowances and benefits in the hope of being able to refine the FBT reporting legislation. Still under discussion is the remote locality leave travel, where ADF personnel or their families posted to remote areas take an occasional flight away from the base to a major population centre like Sydney. We in the National Party, with Senator Boswell at the table, would hope that in discussion with Treasury that is something that the government would seriously consider and perhaps make exempt. That sounds like a good one if you are up there in the far north of Australia.Other benefits under consideration are education assistance for tertiary students or for children who remain in a location to complete schooling while their parents are posted to another location, and allowances paid to Defence families with special needs. It is not a closed chapter yet. There are important matters still under consideration with Treasury. If they are defined as being attached to the job and are seen as part of the unique nature of being in our defence forces, the government will quite happily exempt them from FBT reporting. Senator Hogg came in here before and read a long list. I am letting him know now that many of the things he read out are still under consideration by the government.The motion is out of date. The speakers on the other side have clearly come in here with some pretty old speeches. This matter has been a long time getting up, I suppose, for Senator Crossin. They have failed to recognise the decision that the government has made. They are reading out old emails. We all get emails, but Senator Hogg ought to come in here and table his emails. I challenge him to table those emails and we will match them up against the emails I have which are on the day of the decision, and there are plenty of thankyous amongst them. Senator Hogg has just tried to fill in time with his speech. He has given an outdated speech. I ask the next speaker to stand up and give us a really up-to-date speech, now that you have heard me update you all on the fact that the government's decision of 19 August pretty well solved the concerns of the Defence personnel and that there are still matters under serious consideration.17:07:007874Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I really appreciated Senator McGauran giving us an update, informing us of what exactly is going on and saying that we are outdated. I would like to speak today in support of the motion before the Senate on the impact of the government's new fringe benefits tax reporting regime—a result of the government's new tax system—and about the extreme hardship it imposes on many of our Australian Defence Force personnel. Among the families of our Defence Force there is a great deal of anger, frustration and disillusionment about the recent changes to the fringe benefits tax.This causes me, as with many of my colleagues, to have a great deal of concern for the future of our armed forces. Let us not underestimate the crucial national role per formed by service personnel in this country. Where would we be without them? Not only are these men and women prepared to go into battle to defend the rights of every Australian; they also have an important role to play in counter-terrorist attacks and must be ready to evacuate Australian citizens from anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.Australian defence personnel do not have a choice where they are employed or where they are deployed; they are at the service of the nation. They are not the same as employees in the work force anywhere in Australia. They are a highly trained specialised work force employed in the defence of Australia and of the citizens of this country. They are a special category of employees and need to be treated as such.As a result of the impact of changes to the fringe benefits tax, many of them are now having to rethink their current situations and whether or not they can in fact afford to continue to serve their country. As a result of this measure, we could experience mass separations simply because many people will not be able to afford to stay on as members of the armed forces. Currently, the separation rates run at about 13 per cent. These are just manageable but, if this situation is not addressed, we will see these rates increase dramatically. Not only will we see thousands of military personnel leave the defence forces; we will find it extremely difficult to recruit people. This has the potential to have a significant negative impact on Australia's military capabilities.Failure to exempt Defence Force personnel from the provisions of the fringe benefits tax reporting requirements clearly demonstrates this government's lack of understanding of the unique conditions of service life. The government fails to appreciate the fact that their situation is completely different from that of civilian workers. Unless this government is prepared to recognise the special place that Defence Force families have within the Australian community and that they therefore require special consideration, we are in danger of losing many of our trained personnel.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—But I did give recognition.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—I am coming to you, Senator McGauran. Let us take a minute to look at some of the difficulties that families in the Defence Force have to face every day but that the majority of Australians never even have to think about. These families are not wealthy. They receive salaries in the low to middle income bracket, they are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week and are never paid overtime. They are unable to access normal industrial laws and processes, are subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act and can be sent to war at any time.They are faced with frequent and compulsory moves based on the operational requirements of the Defence Force and they must be ready to just pick up and move their families at short notice to anywhere that they are needed. This impacts on the whole family life. Of course, relocating one's family every so often can be quite traumatic. Adults can adjust to this far more easily than children. Children are forced to change schools, which forces them to leave behind any friends that they have managed to make since the last time they had to move.Anyone who has had to move for whatever reason and, as a result, has had to see their children change schools knows that it is not always easy for children to adjust. Yet the men and women of our armed forces continually make these moves time and time again for the service of their nation. This alone can put a tremendous amount of additional strain on the family relationship. One can hardly argue that these are the normal employment conditions afforded to the rest of Australia, yet this government refuses to see Defence Force families as having a special place within the Australian community. Nor will the government recognise the need to address their requirements as employees who are different from other Australian workers. Instead, this government continues to ignore the fact that the vast majority of allowances that the service personnel receive are to compensate them and their families for the unique circumstances pertaining to service life. The child-care reimbursement allowance, spouse emergency travel, child education allowance, family and service reunion travel and remote locality leave travel are only a few of the allowances and benefits which will attract a fringe benefits tax. The Defence Force Chief Executive's instructions list over 40 allowances and benefits which will attract the fringe benefits reporting requirements. Earlier my colleague Senator Hogg outlined most of these benefits quite extensively. We are talking of legitimate conditions of service that were put in place to compensate members of the Defence Force for their conditions of employment and the inherent hardships of service life.Under this legislation, these allowances will be classed as fringe benefits for Defence Force personnel and will be taken into account for the purposes of the social security means test and for taxation surcharges, such as the Medicare levy, HECS and superannuation. This means that many people in the defence forces will be massively disadvantaged when their incomes are grossed up. Many families will no longer be entitled to family allowance payments or will face increased child support and superannuation surcharge liabilities.The previous speaker, Senator McGauran, spoke of certain exemptions which the government has considered alleviating, such as for housing and other allowances. On this side of the chamber, we commend the government for doing that—if indeed it has—but we will not be happy until the more than 40 benefits are exempt from FBT reporting requirements for Defence Force personnel. I hope the government is looking at all of them, and not just at a few. It is not good enough to just look at a few. This is extremely important to these people. It is a unique thing. Not everybody is prepared to serve their country by working in the defence forces, basically because of the upheaval to family life. It certainly is not a normal way of life.Senator McGauran also spoke of how members of the Defence Force were taxpayers. Of course they are taxpayers. They pay their taxes, just as we all pay taxes, but they are not exactly highly paid—they are not up there with the wealthy or the elite of this country. They are average working people and they work very hard at their jobs. They pay their taxes, but they are entitled to extra benefits and conditions because they are a unique and essential part of our community. They are working for us, for the nation and for the benefit of all the citizens of this country. The government must recognise that members of the Australian Defence Force are in a unique position and are, therefore, entitled to benefits to compensate for the extraordinary lifestyle that they and their families are forced to lead.17:16:007876Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—As I have been at another meeting, I was unable to hear what was said by opposition members at the commencement of this debate on benefits for Australian Defence Force personnel. I came in in time to hear only the end of Senator Gibbs's contribution—which was obviously prepared well in advance. I promise you that my contribution has not been because I have been quite busy—as Senator Quirke would know—at another meeting. However, I did note one or two of the things that Senator Gibbs said. The one thing she did not say was who on earth introduced this fringe benefits tax in the first place. To the best of my knowledge, it was the Labor Party.When the Labor Party introduced the fringe benefits tax legislation in 1986, it refused to exempt Defence as an organisation. Senator Gibbs was not here and neither was I—and, thankfully, neither was Senator Quirke. However, when introducing the fringe benefits tax, the Labor Party refused to exempt Defence, as an organisation, from FBT. As I understand it, the Australian Labor Party also went to an election in 1998 with a policy of widening the FBT reporting legislation—the same conditions that members opposite are now opposed to. They voted then for the FBT legislation which they now oppose.I am sorry I did not hear the speakers who spoke before Senator Gibbs, but I am sure that many of them said exactly the same things she said. You have cried crocodile tears about the FBT but you had ample opportunities to change the legislation. At any time, the Labor Party could have said that in future the defence forces would be exempt from FBT. It did not want to do that. It wanted to retain the capacity that was always there once the legislation was passed in 1986. Members of the Labor Party never moved an amendment to that legislation and at no time did they state an intention to exempt Australian Defence Force personnel. Only now, when the issue has hit the headlines again because of rulings from the Australian Taxation Office, do they try to play on the fears of Australian Defence Force personnel and their families.I am very conscious of the life led by Australian Defence Force personnel. The wife of a member of the Defence Force is on my staff and so I am quite aware of the importance of the supplementary payments and allowances that are made to Defence Force personnel and their effect on their retention in the armed forces. The Labor Party has decided that, having not fixed this up in 1986 when in government, it will now make a big song and dance about the whole thing as though it has just realised that something new has happened. What has happened is that the tax office has made a ruling in relation to FBT.I am aware of the impact that that is having on Defence Force personnel. When someone joins the Defence Force they do it with the understanding that there will be certain forms of remuneration. They all understand what that remuneration is and what it has been over a number of years. When changes are being made that might adversely affect them, it is only natural that they will want to express some concern and do something about it.Senator Gibbs spoke about the upheaval to family life. Those who join the Australian defence forces—Army, Navy or Air Force—are well aware that at some stage during their career they could be posted anywhere in Australia. They do not go in with their eyes shut. They know that once they join the armed forces, even if they have a family, at some stage in their career they will have to move. I think it is going over the top to talk about upheaval to family life because any number of people in any number of professions will, during their working life, have to move interstate or from country town to city or vice versa. They do not call that an upheaval to their family life. In many cases, it is a chance for preferment or betterment.This upheaval to family life that Senator Gibbs talks about is something that always has been and always will be normal in the life of people who choose the Australian Defence Force for their career—and some very fine careers there have been. It is a career that we hope many Australians aspire to. Our defence forces are held in very high regard, both by the Australian community and by people who know them and who have seen them serve overseas, both in times of peace and in times of war. So, when it comes to the taxation treatment of Australian Defence Force personnel, whenever there is a change, it is only natural that there will be a reaction from those who are going to be affected. There will also be a reaction from the government if it sees that people are going to be adversely affected by changes in the rulings of the Australian Taxation Office.Let me give you an example of how the government is reviewing this matter and will continue to review it as more information comes to light. The greatest impact was on housing assistance where people have greatly subsidised rents. They deserve those subsidised rents because a disadvantage of joining the Australian Defence Force is that they are constantly on the move. Many of them choose not to purchase a house because they would like to know where they will finish up before they make that decision.Recent decisions of the Australian Defence Force to situate many of their personnel in northern Australia—in particular, in places like Darwin and Townsville where rents are exceptionally high—mean it is only fair that a person who has no say in where they are going—where they are posted to is at the whim of their superiors—should get housing rental assistance. They have to live in rented accommodation where the rent is much higher than what they would normally expect to pay had they stayed in their town of origin. As Australian Defence Force personnel they are put in a position that no other member of the community is necessarily put into. That was taken into account when the government announced that it would totally exempt from FBT the housing assistance that is paid to our Defence service men and women. The non-reporting of a wide range of other Defence allowances recognises the unique demands that are placed on our service men and women as they serve in various placements throughout Australia.Senator Quirke and I, as part of the Senate Foreign Affairs and Trade Defence Subcommittee, visited many of these establishments in the northern part of Australia only about a month ago. We were able to talk with some of the people who were in receipt of these allowances. It is the role of that subcommittee to listen to what the Defence Force personnel are saying and where they feel that they have been unjustly treated. Senator Quirke will remember our talking to one of the people at an unmanned base at Sherger, who said that, because he was posted there in a caretaker position, he was out of pocket to the tune of something like $8,000 compared with his previous posting to the Tindal air base near Katherine. Because we were able to visit these places and listen to the Defence Force personnel, we can take that issue up. It is certainly one of those things that will happen in relation to many of the allowances that Senator Gibbs listed off if Defence Force personnel feel they will be disadvantaged as against their current position.We place a very high priority on the retention rate in the defence forces. Many young people who choose a Defence Force career, at some stage in their later life—having received training and a certain expertise in an area or a trade—may choose to leave the forces and practise that trade elsewhere. The investment and time that is put into training is not then retained by the defence forces. It is obvious that we need to offer some significant incentives so that the retention rates of those people on whom a considerable amount of money is spent teaching them either a trade or to be good soldiers remain high. There is a wide range of things in the Defence Force that people are required to do, and there is a wide range of things that they can learn to become proficient in, whether it be in a trade or a skill or even degrees of other learning. It is important that we do try to retain those people in the defence forces at the full quota determined by the Australian government and the Defence department. We know that it is important they are retained, Senator Gibbs, and I am sure that some of the issues you raised in your speech—and, as I said, I only heard the end of it—are issues which this government will look at once the explanations are given as to the effect that the new rulings by the tax office will have on those people who serve Australia in the defence forces throughout the whole country.The opposition's suggestion that there should be a total exemption of all reporting is irresponsible; it is not good public policy. I understand the difficulties that arise when some of the FBT reported amounts are put on group certificates and that they may affect other family supplements that some service personnel are entitled to. I am sure that is something the government will continue to look into when they find out the full ramifications of the decision of the tax office.Some of the statements that have been made by the shadow spokesmen, including Mr Martin, show they have already recognised that there are some things that should be reported. They have already recognised that the general's car is an issue that should be reported. Although there is a need to provide some incentive so that people who stay in the forces are not financially disadvantaged, there needs to be a line drawn where we do not go overboard by making sure that people in the defence forces are able to receive benefits that simply are not available to other people in the community—benefits they could not claim to be part of the compensation for the lifestyle of being in the defence forces. I think there are some things that should be reported. Although they are Defence Force personnel, they are also members of the Australian community, and I think they should be treated in exactly the same way with respect to some issues.It is this government's job to try to determine which things should be reported and included under the existing legislation—legislation which the Labor Party introduced. Of course, the Labor Party did not want to have any exemptions, so it is now up to the current government to try to sort out these things for the Defence service personnel. I am sure that all of those things that you raised, Senator Gibbs, will be subject to some sort of review as we go through the whole list. I think that the opposition's call to exempt all ADF personnel from the FBT reporting requirements is quite illogical when you look at the treatment of other allowances by previous governments, including the Labor government when it was in power, and by the current government.I have here copies of some emails in which people have congratulated the government on its exemption of housing from FBT treatment. There are a number of people within the Defence Force who, I am quite sure, know that this government is going to do all in its power to make sure that the things that are required to be changed will be reviewed. In fact, I am sure that there will be an ongoing review and that the government will continue to closely monitor the effect of rulings that have been made.A number of Defence allowances are already exempt and not reportable, and there is no intention to change any of those. Because many of our personnel are required to move from the southern areas up to Darwin and Townsville, there is an airconditioning allowance and an allowance for compassionate travel. The treatment of compassionate travel will not change. There is no move afoot to change the treatment of the home purchase and sales expense allowance for all but first purchases and sales on discharge. That will still be exempt and not reportable. As I understand it, almost all removals—and I cannot think of an instance when removals are not taken into consideration—are already exempt and will not be reportable. You would expect transfer travel and accommodation to be exempt, and this government is going to make sure that that happens.I know that the Department of Defence and the government are discussing with the Treasury the status of a number of the other Defence Force allowances and benefits to refine just how the FBT reporting legislation applies to ADF personnel in the future. A number of those allowances and benefits are still under discussion, and there are some very important ones. I have a staff member who was a recipient of an allowance because her husband—an Air Force pilot—was on an overseas exchange for 2½ years. So I know how important the overseas living allowance paid to Defence families is. Sometimes it is the only way they can actually afford to accept an exchange which, by getting the experience of serving with another force overseas, will improve their career. So I am one who is quite close to the effect of these changes, and I will certainly be monitoring them closely.My colleague Senator Quirke, as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—in which I also have a role—knows that this is a matter that will be discussed, and has been discussed in the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade as recently as Tuesday night. It is an issue that we will continue to monitor because it is in the interests of all of us to have a highly efficient and competent Defence Force. That means that we must do all in our power to make sure that we retain as many personnel as are deemed by the Department of Defence to be necessary to meet requirements. This government will always make sure that it does things that are in the best interests of the Australian Defence Force because we realise just how important it is not only to the personnel who work within those armed services but also to the country as a whole.My time is drawing to a close. There are not many other things that I want to say, except to reiterate what I said when I first started, and that is that the fringe benefits tax was a child of the Labor Party. It had an opportunity in the time that it was in power to exempt the Defence Force if it had felt that exempting the Defence Force was so important and that all reportable payments should not be made. I simply ask the question: if it is so important to the Labor Party, why didn't it exempt the Defence Force from fringe benefits tax in the first place? If it had, we would not be having this debate this afternoon.The Labor Party brought on this motion to try to stir up some public support, forgetting its own complicity in the original legislation that came before this parliament. It is trying to draw some partisan support when in fact there should be a strong bipartisan approach to all matters relating to the Defence Force and to subjects like this. I hope that, when these matters are debated in the chamber in the future, we will see a bipartisan approach in order to make sure that the Defence Force of Australia is a defence force that we are proud of and that those who work in the Defence Force feel comfortable with the conditions that they work under.17:36:007879Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I think we ought to take a quick look at fringe benefits and what this issue is about. Senator Ferguson is right: it was a child of the last Labor government. Fringe benefits tax legislation was brought in in 1986. I remember it well. Indeed, it was brought in to stop, at that stage, a growing source of tax evasion which was accessed primarily by certain elements in society—usually at the top end of the income stream.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—That would be you, Quirkey.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—No, Senator, it was not me. I could not afford to take my missus out on a Sunday in the tax deductible Mercedes to Ayers House—which was also tax deductible. Unfortunately, I could not quite pull that one off.This legislation was brought in, it was very broad brush and, as Senator Ferguson said, it had a large impact. But it wasn't long before there were a few other creative schemes out there. In a previous existence I was the chair of what was known as the economic and finance committee of the South Australian parliament. The Liberal Party moved a motion there one day that we have a look at executive salaries of the statutory corporations—that is, those that reported directly to the then South Australian government. This was an interesting challenge.Before the resolution ink was dry on the paper I had a phone call from the then head of the State Bank to tell me that he hoped we were not going to inquire too much more into the bank because morale was pretty low. About a week later a group of his people came down to see me and it wasn't too long before I worked out what the game was. In the case of this particular individual, he was not paid as much as Mr Marcus Clarke but he was still paid $370,000 a year. This is 1992.1X4WESTSenator West—Not bad.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—No, it wasn't bad, Senator West. What was really good about it was that he put $178,000 into super and got an $80,000-odd tax deduction. He had loyal officers down there in the room telling me that they didn't want us to have a look at superannuation. Then came the Jaguar. One fellow in one of the statutory corporations had a Jaguar, another car, and a Laser for his daughter. I am not talking about a laser printer—I am talking about a car. In fact, of his $140,000 package, he was only getting $19,000 in cash and he was on the family assistance supplement. That is what this stuff was brought in to stop. There have been several attempts in the 1990s to try to rein in the fringe benefits that have been paid out there.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—What union was he in, again?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I don't know. He was in an insurance company, the SGIC. I am not sure, Minister, through you, Mr Deputy President, whether he took his union dues off that $19,000 as well. It is possible; he could have. He was certainly into everything else—car parks, the whole lot—and presumably even his copy of the Truth because, if ever he reads this, he will know exactly what I am referring to.Successive governments have attempted to put integrity into the tax system. I will not knock the present government for attempting to do that as well. They know that it is necessary for the integrity of the tax system and for the morale of the taxpayer that people in this country have confidence that the system is fair and equitable. I don't think there is any argument about that. That is why the opposition here took an approach to this, as Senator Ferguson outlined before, at the last election and during the 1990s to scrutinise the question of reportability of fringe benefits.Unfortunately, in this exercise we have roped in a group of workers in this country who in many respects not only deserve our support and but also at whose remuneration we ought to have a much closer look. In Defence, instead of paying appropriate salaries—and I blame both sides of politics for this—we have relied on all of the different benefits that have gone to these serving men and women in the Defence Force. We have said: `Instead of getting a pay rise of X number of dollars, we will put in place a series of benefits that will give you the same amount of money, less the taxation.'I don't want to go into it too far. I think a lot of politicians understand this system because that is how the electoral allowance was used in years gone by—to achieve the same sort of effect with politicians' salaries. Members of the Defence Force are going to be suddenly pulled up. We are not certain yet about the government's 19 August announcement that it has wiped out the entire problem; it appears that it has only wiped out some elements of it and that there are others still under review. That is certainly what the government speakers have been saying here today. We now know that if those fringe benefits figures are placed on the group certificate and are used for the calculation of a number of social security benefits that may accrue to spouses, the old child endowment as we used to call it, or for those unfortunate enough to have gone through divorce—which is a feature, unfortunately, of defence life; I will go into that in a moment—and to need child support payments, then there is going to be a very serious problem.It is all very well for some senators to come in here and read out different emails, as Senator McGauran did, from the `LCs' as he called them. I presume that is the lieutenant colonels. They are going to be up round $70,000 or $80,000 a year. I am not sure how much a lieutenant colonel is paid but I am sure it is an awful lot more than an ordinary soldier, sailor or airman whose family is probably reliant on the various benefits that have been paid. Unless we are careful with this, we will cause an irreversible breakdown in the morale in the Defence Force and we will lose highly trained professional people who put up with a great deal. They put up with postings that are invariably in what we would call hardship areas.I fully support the shift to Darwin. I think it is a great idea. I am pleased I do not have to have anything to do with it. I have nothing against Darwin; I am sure Darwin is a lovely place for six months of the year. For the other six months of the year it is wet, hot and horrible. The jungle is not much better for a lot of these people. It is not much better for a number of personnel who have to go on overseas postings to such great postcard places as Rwanda and Bougainville. I am sure these people are actually experiencing considerable hardship. To have these sorts of things done to them is just not on.I am pleased Senator Ferguson finished his address by saying that all of these issues are going to be scrutinised by the government. That indicates to me—and I hope I am right—that Senator Ferguson, as chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, will be personally scrutinising the matters to make sure that our Defence personnel are not subject to these sorts of things.I will conclude because I am aware of the time and I want to give a couple of my colleagues a chance to say a few words on this issue. I hope that Defence personnel are not going to be in the same position as a large number of others who have come into my office and said, `It is not worth working.' These are ordinary people.I remember one fellow who was a middle manager at General Motors Holden in Adelaide, earning about $34,000, with two children. He worked out that by the time the Child Support Agency had got through with him all he had left was $90 a week. Unfortunately, the way around it for him was to say, `I do not want to work anymore because if I do I am actually poorer.' I tried to counsel him. I tried to tell him that this is not the approach he should take. It is human nature that people who feel they are working for nothing soon refuse to work. That is what we on this side of politics are frightened of for our Defence Force. This urgently needs proper review.17:47:007881West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—It is with a bit of sadness that I rise to address this issue tonight. We have seen the Defence Force come under very severe attack from this government in recent years. We have seen the defence reform package come in with all its implications. We have had major downsizing of the Defence Force and with that the consequential flow-on which has been lack of morale and uncertainty. We have seen significant numbers of people retrenched from the military. That has not done very good things to the morale within the Defence Force.This is the final straw. I was with some of my colleagues on an inspection at Enoggera and Townsville a couple of weeks ago. Without a doubt this was the issue that was raised. It was raised by all ranks in the ADF, from junior soldiers, sailors and airmen right through to the very senior ranks. This was before they removed the defence housing assistance from consideration under the FBT. This is leaving people with major problems and major impacts upon their lives.You have heard from my colleagues that members of the Defence Force do not work an eight-hour day, five days a week. It is a 24 hour a day, seven day a week, 365 days a year job. Some of them are basically on call. Small groups of them are ready for conflict now. We are seeing increases in readiness of a number of brigades. This has an impact on the morale not only of the troops but also of their families. Separation is becoming an issue. In certain speciality areas separation rates have risen quite considerably.One of the things we worked on when we were in government in the 1980s was the impact the families had on separation and the disenchantment the families felt because of the service life the spouse was leading. That certainly led to many separations in the Defence Force. We now have the situation where the Defence Force has had to reintro duce bonuses to those working in the shortage areas. The shortages are often in speciality areas and areas where people have specialist qualifications and skills that are very marketable outside. In return for their service, after a number of years they get additional money.I do not think this government has looked at the impact the FBT will have on these bonuses. This is going to push some of these people into the area where they will be forced to pay the superannuation surcharge—that is the tax you have when you do not have a tax, which was introduced by this government. It will have an impact upon their Child Support Agency requirements and obligations. These are all issues that this government has failed to take into account. We know that separation—that is, the dissolution of partnerships and relationships—in this country is the highest for those people who happen to be members of the Defence Force. These measures are going to place further stress, concern and worry on Defence Force personnel.There are a couple of expense payments and benefits that I want to look at in particular, to highlight and talk about why they are going to have an impact and why I have been working very hard over the last 15 years to overcome these problems. One is the child education allowance. People will say defence families get money so their kids can have tuition. What people forget, if they are not familiar with families that are mobile across this country, is that education in this country occurs across six states and two territories. There are still eight different education systems. This allowance goes part way to enable families with children to actually have those children in a position where they can get tuition to catch up with and be on the same level as their peers in the state into which they have moved.One needs to remember that in this country we do not have a common starting age for school. We still have a ludicrous situation occurring on occasions—I thought we had fixed it 10 years ago—because when children start school in Queensland they have to have turned five, I think it is in the previous December or it might be during that January. In most of the other states children can start at four and nine months or four and 10 months.I am aware of families who have had the situation where, because they have had a posting forced upon them in the middle of the year, their children have started school in a place such as Victoria, the service spouse has been transferred to Queensland and, when the family gets there, despite the fact that the child might have been in school for a number of months, they are still told—and I was told of a case that happened last year—`The child is too young to start school in Queensland. We will not accept your child.' It is still up to the prerogative of officials in that particular state. These are the sorts of reasons why we need a number of these allowances, particularly ones that relate to education.We do not have the same name in the education system for the class at which children commence school. It can be preparation, transition, kindergarten or year 1. We do not have the same number of years in high schools across this country. We have curriculum variations so that you can get children who might well be in their early years of high school moving from one state to another thinking that they can study a particular maths because the name is the same, or economics or geography, whatever, but the curriculum between those states and territories is not the same. One of the benefits that these children and their families are allowed to access, and which helps those children, is going to be included, unless the government does a rethink.The most stupid thing of all in relation to education in this country is that handwriting styles in each state vary, so that, when children move from state to state, state to territory or territory to territory, they are told that they cannot write like that, that they have to change their handwriting style. And you wonder why parents get upset and frustrated about all the moves they have to make. You wonder why they value very highly education allowances that they can access for their children. They are obviously being dismissed by this government as being of no major significance. Add to that, if you have a child with a disability, what the additional problems are for those families moving. Most states have waiting lists for disability services within their education system and their health system. If you have a child diagnosed as having a learning problem, that diagnosis has probably taken 12 to 18 months. The program has been working very nicely for six months and then at the end of the year it is time to move into a new school. The school may or may not believe what material comes with the child from its previous school and from its previous counsellors. You then lose that period of time while again they go through, `Oh, no, but our system is different; ours is better,' while this child is reassessed. Then, given the appropriate referrals, a program is drawn up. It is probably the same sort of program that they had previously, but, because they have moved to a different state, there has been a break in the period of time that this child should have been receiving that program. This must and does have an impact upon that child's learning.Also, it has an impact upon the family because they know that in two, three or four years time they could well be faced with the same prospect of having to up stumps, move to another state and start the rigmarole all over again: going through the assessment process, getting a program, getting a plan, getting things sorted out. It is a problem. It should not be allowed to happen. I think this government should be criticised most stridently for not taking this into consideration, for not estimating what the impact was going to be. In their usual form, what they have done is acted and then said, `Woops! We've got a problem. We'll look at it and we'll keep nibbling away and making changes.' The government are great for having reviews after they have done something and then have to retrieve the situation.I condemn this government for the moves they have made and for their failure to understand and comprehend the needs of Defence Force personnel.17:59:007883Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—As a member of the Joint Committee on Public Works, I too have had quite a deal to do with Defence families and I am well aware of the circumstances and arrangements as far as FBT is concerned. For instance, as Senator Crossin said earlier, the situation in Darwin where we have defence housing is that if anybody wanted to go up there and rent privately it would be out of the question. The cost of housing in Darwin is absolutely horrendous. It is a huge problem for defence housing to be able to provide the right type of housing. Suffice to say, the standard of housing being provided by defence housing these days is light years in front of what was provided in the past, to the credit of this government.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! The time allotted for consideration of general business notices of motion has expired. We will now proceed to the consideration of government documents.Documents78837883The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:Natural Heritage Trust—Report for 1997-98. Motion to take note of document agreed to.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—Social justice—Report for 1997-98. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document agreed to.Centrelink—Social security compliance activity in Centrelink—Report—July to December 1998, including a statement by the Minister for Community Services (Mr Truss). Motion to take note of document moved by Senator West. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator West in continuation.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report—Superannuation entitlements of same-sex couples: Report of examination of federal legislation (HRC report no. 7). Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 5 February to 31 March 1999 (First). Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation. National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 1998. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants for 1999. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—Fifteenth meeting, Adelaide, 5 March 1999. Motion of Senator McKiernan to take note of document agreed to.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Sex Discrimination Commissioner—National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry—Report. Motion of Senator Cooney to take note of document agreed to.General business orders of the day nos 2-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15-18, 21-23 and 25-37 relating to government documents were called on but no motion was moved.Miscellaneous788478847884Debate resumed from 30 June 1999, on motion of Senator Crane:That the recommendation contained in the committee's report, to refer issues raised in the report to the Procedure Committee, be adopted.18:02:007884O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President, I was very quick to spring to my feet. We seem to be racing through these reports and I did not want this matter to leave the Notice Paper without having the opportunity to speak to it. Senators may recall that the motion relates to a supplementary estimates report from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. This matter was the subject of considerable debate during the truncated debate we had on the financial bills that were dealt with at the end of the last session. As a result, senators on this side were not able to give their full attention to all of the matters that arose from those estimates.It is rather sad to see that the chair of the committee, Senator Crane, has made recommendations arising from that estimates process to the Procedure Committee which, it seems to me, would have the effect of limiting the ability of the estimates committee to inquire into the operations of departments. We pointed out in the debate that one of the suggestions was that you could not refer to any matter that was not contained within the financial year of the subject of the portfolio budget statement. As I understand Senator Crane's position, you could not ask for material which would give the Senate and therefore the community a reference point from the past against which the performance of the department, and indeed the government, could be made at that time.There is also what I consider to be the potentially ridiculous outcome for certain questions we asked about the financial planning of the department during the financial year. The import of the answers that we received was that perhaps all of that information would not be fully known until, in effect, the end of the financial year, which would have meant that it would only really have been available to us in estimates of the financial year following. If one followed the proposal from the chairman, we would then not have been able to ask questions about the matter that the department could not answer during the current financial year because in next financial year's portfolio budget statement we would be referring to the previous financial year.As I understand the import of Senator Crane's proposal, we would be out of time to ask the questions. I suppose that would give the department—I am not saying that they would seek to do this—the opportunity to stonewall on the provision of information and then, if the chair's proposal is accepted, a rule would be applied which would prevent us from gaining the information through the estimates process that we had been denied because the department was not able or willing to provide during the currency of the financial year the subject of the portfolio budget statement which was before the committee.So there were issues which were sought to be canvassed during that estimates process which I and Senator Mackay dealt with in the appropriations debate. I refer senators to the comments that we made then which indicated that the minister at the table, Senator Macdonald, was not prepared to provide information. Frankly, he did not do himself any service in the way he handled his role in the committee and attracted so much adverse comment.I have been waiting for some time for Senator Macdonald to come into this chamber and in fact challenge what was said. These comments that I am referring to were made at the end of June and we are now approaching the end of August. There has been a considerable amount of time during which Senator Macdonald could have come in here and put his point of view on the matter. There have been a great many adjournment opportunities and other opportunities, but he has not taken them. The only conclusion one can reach is that he does not have anything to put which would contradict the matters which were put on the record by me and Senator Mackay.Here we have, firstly, an estimates process which was totally unsatisfactory to the opposition because of the behaviour of the minister at the table and, secondly, a proposal by the chair of the committee, Senator Crane, to limit the opportunities of the estimates process in this area in the future. That would be an even worse outcome from the point of view of this opposition, and I suppose I should remind the government that no government remains in power forever. It would also be a matter which would impact upon their ability to scrutinise a future Labor government—and there will be one. However cocky the government are about their position, they would have to realise that governments change; governments become oppositions and oppositions become governments. So it is a very short-sighted approach by the government to try to change the rules in such a way as to limit the effectiveness of the estimates process.There are other matters that are raised at estimates and some government senators question whether they should be raised there. They are questions which I know I have asked and which, for example, Senator Collins has asked this committee relating to perform ances of government departments and statutory authorities on particular issues.I have asked questions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and that has been a matter of public comment recently, particularly about the appointment of a relatively highly paid officer. The questions I asked about the appointment of Mr Foley have led to an inquiry by the board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I must say that it is an inquiry into themselves—and that is not satisfactory—but, nevertheless, it is an inquiry, and Mr Foley has stood aside from his position while that has been taking place. We have also, as I understand it, had some comments by Minister Anderson which indicate that he is viewing the circumstances of the matter very seriously.If the estimates process were limited in the way that I understand it is suggested by Senator Crane's proposals, we would not have been able to deal with that matter. I think that would lead to a lack of accountability by the authority and a restriction of the process which demonstrably achieves accountability.I have a constituent in Tasmania whose husband was killed arguably as a result of some inaction. I am reluctant to ascribe the word `negligence' to it because the matter is the subject of legal proceedings, but the rights of my constituent have been assisted by pursuing through the estimates process the incident which caused the death of her husband. Obtaining on the public record information which, in most likelihood, would never have been made public is a matter of accountability of a government authority, and that has been achieved through the estimates process. It is a matter of accountability which will possibly lead to a member of the public obtaining redress through the legal system—redress which would not otherwise have been able to have been pursued. I think this matter should remain on the Notice Paper, so I seek leave to continue my remarks.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees788678867886Debate resumed from 27 May 1999, on motion by Senator Bolkus:That the Senate take note of the report.18:13:007886Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to speak briefly to this report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, a committee chaired by my Democrat colleague Senator Allison. This is quite a significant report, and I rise to speak on it mainly to try to emphasise the significance and importance of it. Many times in this chamber we are overwhelmed by paper, reports, responses, documents and all sorts of things. At this time of the week, when we are going through them all at a great rate of knots, it demonstrates how many different types of reports and documents there are around, and often some of the very significant ones can get a little lost amongst the crush. So I think it is important to single this one out as being a significant report on a significant issue.For many years, the Democrats have called for a stronger and more coherent approach on environmental issues at the national level. In the Democrats' view, environment issues are too significant to be left to the vagaries of individual state or local government regimes. That does not mean there is no role for state or local governments—indeed there is a crucial role, particularly for local government, in my view—to ensure that there is better environmental protection. There was an example in the speech I gave in this place yesterday in relation to the Gold Coast City Council and an issue they were facing which had quite significant environmental impacts. But it does need, and we do need, in the Democrats' view, a stronger and more coherent overall set of uniform national standards, a more clearly identifiable set of powers and powers that are strong enough to be able to be used easily, clearly and effectively so that the very significant environmental obligations our country has are met. This committee report, which came at the end of a fairly comprehensive and significant investigation of the issues, does go into that in a significant degree of detail and it provides some very good recommendations.It was coincidental but nonetheless quite relevant and symbolic, if you like, that not long after this report was tabled the Senate considered and passed the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Bill, a bill of some controversy. But one of the key aspects of that bill and of the changes that were made to it—with the amendments that the Democrats achieved in getting passed—was to ensure that there was not a weakening of Commonwealth environment powers. There is some dispute about that amongst some people, but the Democrats are of a belief that we have managed to achieve that. Obviously, we will see, as the act comes into operation and starts being utilised, whether we are accurate in that belief. Certainly, we believe that is the case. It is something we paid a lot of attention to.It is not simply a matter of saying, `The Commonwealth is good and the states are bad.' I think that is a trap and a piece of rhetoric that people often fall into. I have probably been guilty of it myself. Coming from Queensland and having endured many years of National Party government, it is probably not surprising that I have a bit of an aversion to giving too much power to state governments. Clearly, any sorts of government at state and federal levels can be good or bad, and there is nothing necessarily inherently better about either level. What is important is that there is a clear set of uniform standards and a usable set of legislative powers. That is not to cut the states out of their role. We believe that balance was achieved with the amendments made to the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Bill. Most important, and where it jells with this report, is the ability, with that bill being passed, for ongoing work and improvements. The Democrats certainly do not believe that we now have the perfect act, that everything is fine; we think there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement still. But the framework is now in place for more effective improvements to be built on the foundation that is there in a much easier way than using the various disconnected acts that were in place or that currently exist that will be replaced by the new act when it comes into force next year.We have moved some way down the track. This report, in broader terms, talks about why it is important that we do move further down that track. There are recommendations about how to do that and what sorts of definitions and boundaries of Commonwealth environment powers we need to have. I think it is an area that needs specific attention. The Democrats—as all people would now be aware—have moved into a stronger position in the balance of power in this chamber than we have had for a few years. Certainly, as the party's environment spokesperson, I am very keen to ensure that we use our position in that balance of power, where we are able to—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You don't have the balance of power; you are in coalition with the government,DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—to ensure that environmental issues are put back much more at the top of the political agenda than they have been in recent years under both the coalition government and also under the previous Labor Party government whose record on environmental issues—despite the great green credentials of people such as Senator Conroy, well-known tree saver that he is—nonetheless had a lot of room for improvement. The Democrats are very keen to use our role now with the balance of power to ensure that environmental issues are put much more on centre stage. We hope that we will be able to do that. I urge people to examine this report, because it is an important one. For that reason as well, I think it appropriate that it stays on the Notice Paper , so I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.Leave granted; debate adjourned.7887The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy—Select Committee—Interim report—Competition policy: Friend or foe. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Quirke) to take note of report agreed to.Scrutiny of Bills—Standing Committee—Report—Work of the committee during the 38th Parliament, May 1996-August 1998. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Cooney) to take note of report agreed to.Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—22nd report—Five treaties tabled on 11 May 1999. Motion of Senator Cooney to take note of report agreed to.Economics Legislation Committee—Report—Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999. Motion of Senator Murphy to take note of report agreed to.Privileges—Standing Committee—76th report—Parliamentary privilege: Precedents, procedures and practice in the Australian Senate, 1966-1999. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Ray) to take note of report agreed to.Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—21st report—Five treaties tabled on 16 February 1999. Motion of Senator Cooney to take note of report agreed to.Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 368—Review of audit report no. 34, 1997-98: New submarine project: Department of Defence. Motion to take note of report agreed to.Regulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee—107th report—Scrutiny by the committee of Orders made under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. Motion to take note of report agreed to.Adjournment788710000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Order! Consideration of committee reports and government responses having now concluded, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.788718:20:007887Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—On this day the Senate considered and passed a resolution affirming a wholehearted commitment on behalf of the national community to a process of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. This resolution was sponsored by Senator Hill on behalf of the coalition parties and by Senator Ridgeway on behalf of the Australian Democrats. On this same day the House of Representatives passed the same resolution sponsored by the Prime Minister.During the debate on the motion, a number of senators took advantage of the opportunity to express their views about it. In the interests of time, I did not seek to address the Senate at that time. However, insofar as Senator Ridgeway may be said to be a representative of the first peoples of Australia in this Senate, I may claim to have the role of a representative of the new peoples of this country. Therefore I would like, even though this matter has already passed and is established, to take this opportunity to put on record—on behalf of those Australians who became Australian by choice and those many more who will in future generations come to Australia and become Australian by choice—our support for the resolution and the process of reconciliation that it promotes.I would also like to place on record the appropriateness and correctness, in our view, of the words and composition of the resolution, because it recognises a past history of injustice without being preoccupied by particular instances of injustice. Instead it focuses on the process of healing by which we as a nation must go forward. That this motion came at the right time is demonstrated by the senators from the various parties, representing all the people of Australia, who supported it. I note that, for example, Senator Boswell from the National Party, speaking on behalf of the bush, supported it. Of course, Senator Hill, who sponsored it, supported it. Senator Harradine supported it. Senator Harris, on behalf of One Nation, also supported it. I believe that this resolution, coming at such a time, reflects the national mood.Having said that, I wish to place on record my immense disappointment with the way that the Australian Labor Party failed to adhere to the spirit of this proposal and sought to create further division by insisting on changes to certain wordings in the resolution. I note that Senator Ridgeway, in his speech proposing this motion, stressed that this should be a healing process and not politics—reflecting a sentiment by Dr Lowitja O'Donoghue that it should be a healing process and that politics should be out of it. And yet, as I said, I was intensely disappointed that the Labor Party chose to make a political issue out of it.I wish that the Labor Party senators had been present in the house late yesterday afternoon to listen to the speech by Senator Mason—just preceding the first speech of Senator Ridgeway—which is perhaps the best reflection there could be of the mood of the nation in seeking reconciliation. I take this opportunity to commend Senator Mason on his words. I think that is all I need to say on this issue, having put my feelings on record.788818:27:007888Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In the Australian newspaper of last Thursday, 19 August appeared a series of timely, disturbing yet predictable articles on the poor state of government openness in Australia. The articles highlighted the lengths to which governments at both state and Commonwealth levels have gone to close the doors to public scrutiny of their dealings with the private sector. I have spoken earlier this year in the Senate of the scandalous use of the commercial-in-confidence cloak by this government—and other governments—to prevent examination by the Senate of various documents, and not least by this government on that matter.On that occasion, the federal government had claimed that it was Senate practice not to require the production of certain documents. The Senate, as one of the two houses which represent the people, may decide at its discretion that certain documents should not be made public, but it is not at the discretion of the executive that such a decision should be made. To do so is for the executive to usurp the crucial role of scrutiny of government that this house performs and that all parliaments perform as a democratic and public duty.One of the reasons that I have raised this issue in the past—and will continue to raise it repeatedly in the future until something is done—is the horrendous cost incurred by governments' secrecy. In my home state of Western Australia, those costs were not limited to the hundreds of millions wasted in the WA Inc. saga but also extended to taxpayer funds subsequently spent on the royal commission and the Commission on Government. The valuable work done by those bodies now gathers dust, propping up library shelves. The Court government has barely even paid lip-service to their recommendations—which, incidentally, is in my view one of the reasons so many voters are disillusioned with it. There are millions of dollars being spent by that government under the cloak of secrecy, money that we will only find out about when it is too late. It is a great pity that the early promise of the Court government that it would clean things up and become much more accountable has been forgotten.The Australian Democrats supported the recommendations of the Western Australian royal commission and those of the Western Australian commission of government. We endorse the two-pronged approach to freedom of information those bodies envisaged. We support the promotion of the freedom of information regime as the governing legislation for determining when information held by the government should be disclosed. But we also support the enactment of privacy legislation to address specific privacy issues surrounding the storage, use and retrieval of personal data and data-matching between government agencies.The Western Australian royal commission in 1992 found that unnecessary secrecy surrounded actions taken by the government into some of the events into which the commission inquired. The government was found to have used official secrecy to keep the public deliberately uninformed. Openness in government is an indispensable prerequisite of accountability to the public. It is a democratic imperative. The right to vote has no substance unless it can be cast in an informed way based on adequate information. If government is to be government for the people, if the public is to be able to participate in government and experience its benefits, the public must be properly informed about government and its affairs. Openness will not, of course, hold for all purposes and in all circumstances, national security being an obvious example, but it should be the norm and secrecy should be the exception. Information is the key to accountability in government. In fact, it is the key to a democratic system.The edition of the Australian to which I referred earlier also contained an editorial which succinctly puts the case for governments at all levels to lift their performance in this area. It read in part as follows:Contracting out can reduce or extinguish the public's rights as otherwise assured by a range of laws, such as review by Ombudsman or judge, and freedom of information. It is through these laws that citizens keep governments and public authorities accountable. Parliaments, as well as individuals, are now less well informed. A number of auditors-general have complained of their inability to report fully to their Parliaments because of commercial confidentiality clauses in contracts between governments and the private sector. Yet Parliaments have a duty to scrutinise the business of Governments. And taxpayers, as the source of the funds used to pay for the rising number of contracts with private companies, are entitled to know how their money is being spent. Where the private sector replaces the public, the level of information available should not be reduced.It would seem apparent that the primary reason the level of information has been reduced is that governments fear what may be brought to the public's attention. The former Victorian Auditor-General confirmed this in recently stating, `There's no doubt in my mind the desire to hide behind the shield of commercial confidentiality in some cases is a desire to hide commercially embarrassing situations rather than what's confidential.' Such a circumstance cannot be tolerated. It is the job of parliaments to seek out such situations and prevent or minimise the damage they might cause.If responsible government is to have some real meaning in the Commonwealth of Australia and in each state, the constitutional role of the parliament must be discharged and be seen to be discharged. Accountability can be exacted only where those whose responsibility it is to call government to account are themselves possessed of, or are able to obtain, the information necessary to make considered judgments. Information is the key to ac countability. Governments consistently and persistently use commercial confidentiality to hide matters that should not be hidden, to conceal deals and arrangements that should be exposed, and to protect special, private and sometimes improper relationships from public scrutiny and accountability.A challenge must be made to the arrogant use of executive power to maintain cloaked arrangements. In the unanimous High Court judgment in the 1997 Lange case, the High Court directly addressed the issue of the reach of executive power in the following terms:Those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the Executive Branch of Government throughout the life of a Federal Parliament.Thus the court highlights a constitutional limitation on the power of the executive to withhold information.But it is not just the Constitution we must pay attention to in this matter. It is the duty of responsible government within a progressive democracy to have as little secrecy as possible in its affairs. Election results federally and in the states clearly reflect a desire by the Australian people to have independent upper houses that do act as a check on the executive. But in order to carry out this desire of the people, parliament must demand, and get, full disclosure on government dealings.The Australian Democrats will continue to pursue this issue at every opportunity. This is one issue that will never fade from Australia's political agenda, no matter how much any government may want it to. In my opinion, the Australian newspaper did us all a service last week by drawing attention to this critical issue.789018:35:007890Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I rise tonight to highlight the importance of the tourism industry to Australia, and of course to my own state of Tasmania. Today at Parliament House we had a CSIRO national science briefing on Managing the Tourists: Regional Australia's Big Opportunity. Speakers were Professor Philip Pearce, Paul Walker and Sir Frank Moore, who gave enlightening addresses on cooperative research centres for sustainable tourism, the CSIRO tourism futures simulator and insights into the future of the Douglas Shire.Tourism is indeed exciting because of its potential to create jobs, increase national wealth and bring the world and Australia closer together. The Internet can bring the most obscure tourist site to the world stage. Australia is indeed a great place to visit. The friendliness of our people, the spectacular natural environment, the culture, the multicultural community, the food and wine, the lifestyle, the weather, the water—all have made Australia one of the most desirable destinations in the world.The Tourist Commission has the task of promoting Australia to the world as a tourist destination, and it declares tourism's top 10 facts to be as follows. It employs 12 per cent of the work force. Many jobs are for young people and in regional areas. Over 200,000 new jobs are expected to be created in the next decade. $16.4 billion was received in foreign exchange earnings in 1997-98. The industry is Australia's largest single earner of foreign exchange dollars. It contributes 10.5 per cent to GDP and governments will receive over $16 billion in taxes generated by tourism in 1998. Foreign exchange earnings and taxes paid to governments are forecast to almost double over the next 10 years.Inbound arrivals in 1998 were 4.2 million, actually a decline of 3.7 per cent on 1997, but there is growth of 3.4 per cent forecast for 1999. Growth between 2002 and 2007 is forecast to average 7.5 per cent per annum, reaching 7.7 million international visitor arrivals in 2007, when export earnings are forecast to grow to close to $30 billion. So, in world terms, Australia's market share and receipts from tourism are indeed improving.But, when one reflects on these top 10 facts, it is very important to take into consideration that over 80 per cent of companies in the industry employ fewer than 20 people. Their employees make up around 50 per cent of the work force, so small business plays a very big part in Australia's tourist industry. The Productivity Commission estimates that for every 10 per cent increase in the number of visitors to Australia 30,000 jobs are created. Tourism has helped create 1.8 million new jobs in the service industries between 1984 and 1997.It is interesting to note that the manufacturing, mining and agricultural industries combined created only 5,000 new jobs over the same period. Research which has been undertaken by Tourism Training Australia, which is responsible for tourism training throughout the country, estimates that in the 10 years between 1995 and 2005 the tourist industry will have generated up to 200,000 new jobs. The industry supports growth in services in the retail industry, manufacturing, the education system, entertainment and leisure.In 1998 overseas tourist visitors from Japan recorded the highest number of arrivals to Australia, totalling 750,315. New Zealand was second, the UK was third, the USA was fourth and Singapore was fifth. Fifty-seven per cent of these people came to holiday, 20 per cent came to visit friends and relatives, 11 per cent came to conduct business, 10 per cent came for other purposes and the convention market attracted two per cent. It is quite interesting to look at their length of stay. For Europeans it was 38 days, 28 for Americans, 12 for Japanese, 27 for Asians and 13 for New Zealanders. The Japanese actually spent more per day on average, at $114, and the Europeans spent the least, at $61 per day, but each group visits different sorts of destinations. Popular places to visit included the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, theme parks on the Gold Coast, the Great Barrier Reef and the Phillip Island penguin parade. More visited Parliament House in Canberra, for example, than visited Kakadu—nearly double. In Tasmania, the Port Arthur historic site was particularly popular.Australia is developing some exciting new products in Aboriginal tourism, wine and food, sports tourism and cruise shipping. The ultimate national showcase will be the 2000 Olympic Games next year and, according to the Tourism Forecasting Council, between 1997 and 2004 the Games will directly and indirectly bring an additional 1.6 million visitors and $6.1 billion in foreign exchange earnings to Australia. They are the single biggest tourism opportunities for Australia in our lifetime and are the biggest advertisements our country could hope for.Of course, immediately following the Olympic Games the Paralympics will be held. There are some other big events at the start of the new century. For example, in 2001 Australia will celebrate the Centenary of Federation, in 2002 Sydney will host the Gay Games, in 2003 Australia will host the Rugby World Cup and in 2006 Melbourne is expected to host the Commonwealth Games.While Australia receives an enormous number of visitors, there is still plenty of potential. The world's number one tourist destination in 1996 was France, with 70 million arrivals. The second was Spain with 48 million. The United States was third with 47 million short-term visitors.The federal government has granted the Australian Tourist Commission an additional $50 million over the four years from 1998-99 and the funds will be used in part to boost activities in Europe and North America and to allow the development of these emerging markets. Australia is promoted in many and varied ways in all corners of the world. We are defining our personality—building and selling an image of Australia to the world. But one of the key issues facing Australian tourism is the issue of dispersal, getting visitors to venture outside the major destinations of Sydney, Melbourne, the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Far North Queensland, Adelaide, Perth and of course Canberra.Approximately one-fifth of visitors venture beyond those places and, fortunately for my state of Tasmania, that figure is growing. We have great potential in Tasmania. North America registered the most visitors to Tasmania in 1998 with 27 per cent, followed closely by the United Kingdom with 25 per cent, continental Europe with 21 per cent and Japan ranked sixth with four per cent. One only has to go into some of our national parks, such as Cradle Mountain or Freycinet, to hear tourists speaking with great enthusiasm about the extraordinary beauty of these areas. Interestingly, we found that the North Americans stayed, on average, for eight nights in Tasmania, spending on average $125 per day—of course, money goes a lot further in Tasmania. The British stayed, on average, for 15 nights and spent $76 on average per day. People from continental Europe stayed for an average of 18 nights, spending about $62 on average per day. Major attractions for all visitors to Tasmania—including domestic tourists—included the Port Arthur historic site, Salamanca Place in Hobart, the Cataract Gorge in Launceston, Cradle Mountain, Mount Wellington, Coles Bay, the Freycinet Peninsula on the east coast and the Gordon River on the west coast.The future for Australian tourism is bright. No other industry has the potential to create more jobs over the next 10 years. Tourism spending impacts right across the country and provides jobs for over one million people. The industry and government are working together to grow tourism. By bringing the world to Australia we bring national income, cultural ties, employment and an opportunity for Australians to celebrate their country and to confirm what the rest of the world thinks—that we are the most welcoming and friendliest country on earth.Senate adjourned at 6.45 p.m.Documents78927892The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Product Ruling PR 1999/89.Taxation Determination TD 1999/43.Taxation Ruling— TR 95/4 (Addendum). TR 1999/12.Answers to Questions on Notice7893The following answers to questions were circulated:7893(Question No. 1136)11367893Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 23 June 1999:Have any consultants been engaged by the department, or by the former Department of Social Security, to evaluate year 2000 compliance; if so: (a) who has been engaged; and (b) at what cost.7893Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Yes. Walter & Turnbull and Compaq Computer Australia Pty Ltd. $11,750 (by FaCS) and $85,714 (by CRS Australia).7893(Question No. 1179)11797893O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 July 1999:(1) (a) What level of Commonwealth funding was provided to the public primary and secondary education system in Tasmania in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what level of funding has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) What was the level of funding in each of the above financial years for: (a) general recurrent grants and capital grants; and (b) targeted assistance.(3) What was the level of funding for the above financial years for each category contained in the targeted assistance sub-program.7893Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) The Commonwealth does not hold information (historical or estimates) on funding for schools on a primary/secondary basis. The general recurrent grants program (which makes up more than 80% of total Commonwealth schools' funding) can be split roughly by sector but only on a calendar year basis, due to the nature of the program. Table A shows primary and secondary funding under the general recurrent grants program and total funding for Tasmanian government schools for 1995 to 1999. Please note that the figures are in cash terms.Table A—Commonwealth General Recurrent Grants (GRG) and total funding to Tasmania, Government SchoolsYearPrimary GRG $mSecondary GRG $mTotal Funding* $m199512.4614.0738.34199612.7014.3039.07199713.5215.7341.96199814.1616.5543.441999 #14.4915.7942.86# 1999 figures are indicative estimates only, based on forecast enrolments and estimated splits. In addition, 1999 funding will be subject to supplementation in October 1999.* Total funding includes general recurrent grants, capital funding and targeted programs.(2) (a) Total Commonwealth general recurrent and capital funding for government schoolsYearGovt General Recurrent $mGovt Capital $m1995-96916.10206.091996-97953.89186.701997-981,044.95219.33 1998-991,076.04210.451999-00 (est)1,146.34221.02(b) Total Commonwealth targeted funding for government schoolsYearGovt Targeted $mJoint $m1995-96216.099.901996-97229.944.731997-98244.846.671998-99258.5212.211999-00 (est)279.1720.43* Funding for joint programs is not able to be split by government/non-government.These are generally project-based and utilise a variety of providers.(3) A detailed split of targeted funding for government schools and joint programs is contained in the attached table.COMMONWEALTH FUNDING FOR TARGETED PROGRAMS1995-961996-971997-981998-991999-00$m$m$m$m$mGovernmentGrants to Schools for Literacy-55.16122.15 124.72139.21Special Education39.4735.2840.1741.5042.60Students with Disabilities4.956.586.538.218.27ESL New Arrivals31.7842.3127.7032.2534.50Country Areas13.8714.0915.3115.5516.29NALSAS-5.2619.6122.9825.26Priority Languages4.822.422.752.763.05Community Languages4.328.997.27 7.437.97School to Work--3.36 3.132.03Pre-Broadbanded ProgrammesStudents at Risk5.212.71n/an/an/aESL General Support45.3423.57n/an/an/aDisadvantaged Schools57.8930.03n/an/an/aEarly Literacy7.793.55n/an/an/aGender Equity Component0.66-n/an/an/aTotal Government216.09229.94244.84258.52 279.17Joint ProgrammesEducation Centres2.611.36---PNS3.012.450.610.06-Grants for Transition Support3.240.05---Literacy and Learning National0.930.00---Gifted and Talented Students0.110.01---NALSAS-0.101.170.841.94National Literacy Strategies and Projects-0.774.904.457.63Full Service Schools---6.8710.86Total Joint Programmes9.904.736.6712.2120.437895(Question No. 1180)11807895O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 July 1999:(1) (a) What level of Commonwealth funding was provided to the private primary and secondary education system in Tasmania in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what level of funding has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) What was the level of funding in each of the above financial years for: (a) general recurrent grants and capital grants; and (b) targeted assistance.(3) What was the level of funding for the above financial years for each category contained in the targeted assistance sub-program.7895Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) The Commonwealth does not hold information (historical or estimates) on funding for schools on a primary/secondary basis. The general recurrent grants program (which makes up more than 80% of total Commonwealth schools' funding) can be split roughly by sector but only on a calendar year basis, due to the nature of the program. Table A shows primary and secondary funding under the general recurrent grants program and total funding for Tasmanian non-government schools for 1995 to 1999. Please note that the figures are in cash terms.Table A—Commonwealth General Recurrent Grants (GRG) and total funding to Tasmania, Non-Government SchoolsYearPrimary GRG $mSecondary GRG $mTotal Funding* $m199516.8919.9141.17199617.3321.1043.01199718.7223.6846.23199820.7026.0250.801999 #21.0226.4251.89# 1999 figures are indicative estimates only, based on forecast enrolments and estimated splits. In addition, 1999 funding will be subject to supplementation in October 1999.* Total funding includes general recurrent grants, capital funding and targeted programs.(2) (a) Total Commonwealth general recurrent and capital funding for non-government schoolsYearNon-Govt General Recurrent $mNon-Govt Capital $m1995-961,651.15116.261996-971,771.16104.291997-982,028.4485.571998-992,335.4487.381999-00 (est)2,493.7186.89(b) Total Commonwealth targeted funding for non-government schoolsYearNon-Govt Targeted $mJoint $m1995-9691.509.901996-97101.804.731997-98122.516.671998-99124.2412.211999-00 (est)141.6020.43* Funding for joint programs is not able to be split by government/non-government. These are generally project-based and utilise a variety of providers.(3) A detailed split of targeted funding for non-government schools and joint programs is contained in the attached table.COMMONWEALTH FUNDING FOR TARGETED PROGRAMS1995-961996-971997-981998-991999-00$m$m$m$m$mNon-governmentGrants to Schools for Literacy-18.3841.2744.1550.68Special Education—School Support34.6433.6628.4629.4031.37Centre Support—Current-6.7121.1519.9125.01Students with Disabilities5.54 6.808.947.158.26ESL New Arrivals3.963.563.103.043.41Country Areas1.701.882.232.583.04NALSAS-2.737.998.5910.40Priority Languages3.261.762.041.982.21Community Languages4.875.015.625.746.16School to Work--1.721.681.04Pre-Broadbanded ProgramsStudents at Risk2.081.08n/an/an/aESL General Support23.3412.16n/an/an/aDisadvantaged Schools9.444.90n/an/an/aEarly Literacy2.581.15n/an/an/aTransition Support—Special Schools-1.99n/an/an/aGender Equity Component0.09-n/an/an/aTotal Non-government91.50101.80122.51124.24141.60Joint ProgramsEducation Centres2.611.36---PNS3.012.450.610.06-Grants for Transition Support3.240.05---Literacy and Learning National0.930.00---Gifted and Talented Students0.110.01---NALSAS-0.101.170.841.94National Literacy Strategies and Projects-0.774.904.457.63Full Service Schools---6.8710.86Total Joint Programs9.904.736.6712.2120.43