1999-08-303914SENATE789701999-08-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills7897r6467897Consideration resumed from 26 August.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The committee is considering the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998, as amended. The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.12:31:007897Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I move:Clause 3, page 2 (line 31), omit `indigenous'.In speaking to the amendment circulated in my name, I do not believe we should legislate to give indigenous culture primacy over European culture or heritage, or any other culture or heritage. This is the reason why I oppose clause 3(a)(ii) of the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . In its current form, the bill speaks to environmental values, old-growth values, wilderness endangered species values, national estate values and world heritage values. It also speaks to economic values and social values. The bill then goes on to speak to indigenous heritage values. In listing all of the previous values, if the bill excludes indigenous heritage values, then it is reasonable to assume that it also excludes non-indigenous values.In forest areas which are subject to regional forest agreements, there are examples of non-indigenous heritage values that should be assessable under the RFA process. For example, there are buildings, camp sites of historical significance, graves, ruins and sites of historical importance. I am sure there are other values that I have not listed here. I believe that all heritage is valuable to the people it relates to. Regardless of whether or not it happens to be indigenous, such heritage is worthy of assessment and protection if necessary. If we look around the New South Wales and Victorian high alps, we find cabins from the cattlemen in the pastoral industry. If we go into some of the historic camping areas, there are holiday shacks. These all form part of our cultural heritage and are of value to the person they relate to. There are old ruins of pioneer cottages. There are examples of old steam driven sawmills in the Brindabella Mountains. Some of the national heritage bush tracks down the eastern coast travel in close proximity to where the Chinese and the Australian miners mined in the latter part of last century and the early part of this century. There are examples of tunnels which they blasted during that process. There are examples of races that they dug and stone pitching which the Chinese carried out in their mining industry. All of these are examples of non-indigenous heritage values and are worthy of assessment in the RFAs.If the government and the opposition really believe that people should not be afforded special treatment on the basis of race, then they should practise what they preach and support the amendment that will ensure equality for both indigenous and non-indigenous heritage and refrain from making laws that give preference to one group based on race.12:36:007897Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will not be supporting this amendment. The proposed amendment is to overcome some perceived bias in the RFA process to the protection of indigenous heritage values over the protection of other values. This clearly is not so because the RFA process is designed to take into account, as fully as possible, all values relevant to the region. In all the regions that have been the subject of the RFA process to date, assessment of indigenous heritage values has been a relevant consideration and we need to take that into consideration when assessing what an RFA should be. We find it appropriate therefore that indigenous heritage values be as much a part of the definition of an RFA in the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 as the other values of environmental values, economic values and social values. The government does not support this amendment12:38:007898Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—Likewise, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Frankly, I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life as has just been put forward in support of the amendment. One has to understand what protection of heritage and culture is all about. I was not aware that the European cultural heritage of this nation, which is some 200 years old—a fairly insignificant length of time in world history—was in any danger of disappearing. If anything, it is the reverse. European heritage and culture in this country is alive and well, and thriving. It is recognised daily. It is also recognised in this particular industry. I am sure that Senator Harris has heard of Timbertown, near Wauchope, a cultural heritage tourist centre that has been constructed to recognise that particular history—short as it may be against the standards of civilisation; short as it may be in this country. There you can go and see examples of what took place in what was a thriving industry in northern New South Wales. There are many other examples of the recognition of Australia's European cultural heritage.I also have some difficulty with the concept of heritage being applied equally to both cultures, in the manner that Senator Harris put forward. It is false to suggest that it is unequal and somehow wrong to promote the protection and recognition of this country's indigenous heritage. After all, throughout the world, it is the indigenous culture and heritage of many nations that is specifically recognised because that is always what is in danger of being lost. The other point that Senator Harris made was that, by including this, we are somehow not treating all people equally. I do not accept that argument, because the maintenance of a timber industry is something that we support and promote. This legislation, together with our amendments, which dramatically improve it, and the RFA process itself are all about maintaining and promoting the timber industry in an ecologically, environmentally and economically sustainable form.If that is not recognising the past 200 years of heritage in this industry, then I cannot think of anything else that would be. This legislation is very much about sustaining and promoting that industry, and I make no apology for having included in it the important objective of recognising that, hand in hand with promoting our great environmental heritage—the protection of old-growth forest, wilderness, endangered species, national estate values—we are promoting the maintenance of a sustainable timber industry while ensuring that indigenous heritage values are protected and promoted. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment.12:43:007898Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I am pleased to put it on the record that the Australian Democrats cannot and will not support this argument by Senator Harris. We believe that Aboriginal sensitivities and, in particular, heritage are a crucial and important part of the RFA process—if we are to have an RFA process—and, further, that this is yet another small step in working towards recognition and Aboriginal reconciliation.12:44:007898Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, to Senator Harris: I have some sympathy for this amendment, but not in the way in which it is drafted. I do think indigenous heritage values stand alone and ought not be removed as a specific item. There is an argument that non-indigenous heritage values—the ones that Senator Harris has adverted to—ought to have been written in as part of the assessment preceding an agreement being reached. I am quite surprised that Forestry Tasmania, which makes a big issue of many of the things that Senator Harris spoke about, has failed to get such a subclause inserted in the bill, requiring the assessment of the non-indigenous heritage values to be part of an agreement before it is acceptable. I would suggest to Senator Harris that some other form of approaching this might be the best way to go.Indigenous heritage values are incredibly important. They should not be muddled up with post-invasion values. They are right through the forests. The committee will remember I asked Senator Troeth last week about heritage values and the concern that the Deloraine Aboriginal community had about impending logging on Quamby Bluff.It is bad enough that Senator Troeth has been unable to give the committee any information on that logging—which would include, of course, were she to give it, indigenous values—which must be assessed, according to this document, before we can proceed to accept the Tasmanian RFA, for one. But one must presume from this—and Senator Harris is pointing this out quite rightly—that there has not been an assessment of the non-indigenous heritage values either. And that is pretty poor considering that this legislation seeks to lock down current regional forest agreements based on the presumption that all the work has been done. From Senator Troeth's inability to respond as far as Quamby Bluff is concerned, I think we can see that that work has not been done. I think Senator Harris is probably quite rightly concerned that other heritage values which are not listed here are even less likely to have been looked at.It might help us and engender some confidence in the committee if the government was able to talk about the heritage values that have been assessed—both indigenous and non-indigenous—so that we can get an assessment of what degree of coverage there has been of these values. I think Senator Harris ought not be ignored on the matter. He and I are on different sides of the fence when it comes to this whole legislation, but what he is saying is commonsense, and maybe Senator Troeth could help him by giving an account to the committee of the assessments that have been made in any one area—or generally around Australia—of non-indigenous heritage values. When we discuss this clause I will be asking Senator Troeth to give us more information on the specific case in Tasmania which I have adverted to.12:48:007899Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I would first of all like to address the comment by the minister that these values are actually protected in the legislation. We are talking about a Commonwealth bill; we are not talking about the state based RFAs. In the bill itself I go back to the definitions. In the definition for RFA, under (a), it very clearly says:. . . the agreement was entered into having regard to assessments of the following matters that are relevant to the region or regions . . . In her answer, the minister said that these issues were to be addressed within the region or regions. Again I put my question. The act clearly sets out the environmental values, old-growth values, wilderness values, endangered species values, national estate values, world heritage values, economic values and social values. I do not in any way say that they will not be assessed. But, if the head of power of this act is such that, after having listed all of those values, it then clearly needs to add indigenous heritage values as a separate, specific item, it is very explicit that non-indigenous values do not come under any of those preceding values.Senator Forshaw said that if we want to look at European culture and heritage we can go to a tourist park. I can do the same thing in Cairns at Tjapukai. I do not see the relevance of the statement. What I am clearly saying is this. Can the senator clearly show me how having something represented in a tourist park will actually preserve the value in the forest—say, for argument's sake, an old steam engine in its place in the forest, a mining race or a cabin in the high country? If those tourist parks and their examples can actually protect the physical objects that are in the forestry area I would be very pleased if the senator could indicate to me how it can be achieved.I have not at any point in time said anything that would diminish the value of indigenous heritage, and I would like it to be very clearly put on the record that it is not my intention to do so. My intention was, and still is, to recognise both, and not detract from either.12:52:007899Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Senator Harris deserves a response to that. He obviously feels keenly about the matter, and it is an important one. I have just looked at the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. As far as I can see, there is no mention of the non-indigenous heritage values that you refer to, Senator Harris. This is pretty unusual because, as I said earlier, the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, now called Forestry Tasmania, have put enormous amounts of effort into trying to prevent areas being protected, particularly with national park status, because they have said that this would infringe on cultural values. One would have thought that there would be a sizeable contribution in their own agreement—signed by the Prime Minister—enumerating those cultural values to ensure that they are not also damaged by logging practices.I do not mean here your small sawmiller. We are looking at the big operators who move into forest areas and bulldoze sites of past logging activities of the steam age. There is bush machinery such as Senator Harris has spoken about. There are old steam engines, haulage ways and tram tracks. In places horse power was being used pre-steam. There are remnants of those logging activities, including snigging tracks, harness and even sites of stables and so on. These sites, although they are protected in the incident I am about to refer to, were numerous along the Gordon and Franklin rivers, for example, because the piners who went in there simply could not take machinery up to those sites, even this century. There are sites like this all over the Great Western Tiers in Tasmania, through into the nearer parts of the southern forest, the Tasman Peninsula, where Senator Troeth has been and studied the matter, and other parts of Tasmania where, pre-woodchipping, the logging industry was close to towns. It was not right back in the hinterland; it was close in. The sites where this took place are now few and far between.Woodchipping arrived in Tasmania in 1970. The first mill was set up at Triabunna on the east coast, following the earlier establishment of the Harris Daishowa mill at Eden, in New South Wales just north of the border with Victoria, in 1969. Since that time, more than 120 small sawmills have been closed in Tasmania without a conservationist in sight. These have been closed by the big corporations like North and Boral, and Amcor in a different way—their predecessors. They wanted essentially to get the small sawmillers out of the way and take over the public forests—the Crown forests, as they were then called. They were very successful in doing that through successive Labor and Liberal governments in Tasmania and they are still successful at doing that.But there is a heritage of timber-getting which you will see displayed at Dorrigo, Geeveston, Orbost and other timber community towns, including no doubt south-west Western Australia as well.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You can see it in the mills that are still operating in the forests.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, in some of them you can.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—But you want to shut them all down.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Forshaw is making the big mistake that I just referred to. In history, it is the big woodchippers that have shut these people down. In Tasmania, over 90 per cent of the forest currently coming out of places like the Tarkine Wilderness is not going to end up as cut timber. It ends up as woodchips.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—That is the name you use.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Calvert interjected there. I am sure he will get up and give different figures.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—No; I am just saying the Tarkine does not exist. It is a name that you made up.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—He says now that the Tarkine Wilderness does not exist. Here we are in a case of reality. He will be telling us next that the planet does not exist and nor does the Senate. I do not know what goes on in the senator's mind, but maybe he can get up and explain that a little bit more in a moment. The reality is that we are talking here about heritage of the post-invasion kind. Logging of the forests began all around Australia to establish the settlements. Then it became a major export industry in terms of sawn timber. Most of the docks in London, for example, came out of our forests, using Tasmanian blue gum and other durable species. That was accompanied by Huon pining, which I think goes back to 1807, the same year as the first Tasmanian tiger was described in these forests. That was a very rapid destruction of a unique species because the whole world wanted the most durable building timber species you could get.It is important, if we are going to be sure that the regional forest agreement over the next 20 years does not lead to erosion of these sites, because the woodchipping companies could not care two hoots about anybody's heritage. After all, the boards of these woodchipping corporations have not been into the forests where their clear-fell logging is occurring at the moment. So how could they know or care about the sawmills that Senator Forshaw was talking about? They do not. They care about getting the sawlog allocation for themselves as well and setting up large in-city sawmills which are fitted with the latest high-tech machinery and computers and do away with the jobs of the people traditionally in the industry. That is why, despite all the talk about jobs, the shedding of jobs in this industry is going on in those states where RFAs are not signed and the shedding of jobs is going on in those states where RFAs are signed, because the woodchip corporations, with their takeover of the sawn timber industry, are calling the shots.There is a pre-woodchip corporation heritage, and Senator Harris has quite rightly drawn our attention to it. That heritage is disappearing fast, and it has been swept aside—certainly by the clear-fell logging practices in Tasmania. I can show Senator Forshaw sites of mills not too far from my place at Liffey that are now lost under industrial forestry—fast growing plantation trees. Forestry Tasmania has moved in with the woodchip corporations and swept the whole lot aside. Forestry Tasmania could not care two hoots. It will trot it out when it suits its case to try to give more power to the woodchippers, as in this legislation, but once again it is a case of simply manipulating the real concern of the people, which is that we protect this heritage, to get a different end—to get a bigger slice of the action for the woodchip corporations.It is not good enough for us to simply say, `Let's ignore this; it may have been assessed somewhere.' It is very important for Senator Troeth to tell the committee just where the European heritage—and the Chinese heritage and the heritage of other non-indigenous people associated with the forest—is dealt with. Where is that dealt with in any single regional forest agreement signed or unsigned? I have here the Tasmanian document, which is 133 pages long if you do not count the map at the end. There is no index, which is typical of anything to do with Forestry Tasmania, because that would help an inquirer get the information, and they are in the business of trying to stop any inquirer getting any information at all—it suits their politics. In the absence of that index I may not have looked in all the right places, but the parliamentary secretary knows because she says the assessments have been done. Here is the clear challenge to see if she is right: could the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, please point out to me, or to Senator Harris if she prefers, where non-indigenous heritage is dealt with in this lengthy document? I do not believe it is there.I believe that, once again, the homework has not been done. The government could not care less about European heritage. Mr Howard did not have the foggiest idea what he was doing, as far as matters like this are concerned, when he flew to Tasmania and signed this agreement. Nor did Premier Rundle, and certainly Premier Bacon does not have the foggiest idea now. Deputy Premier Lennon in Tasmania is very ebullient about his support for the regional forest agreement, but apparently he could not care less about the non-indigenous, let alone the indigenous, cultural values of this document.Indigenous issues are dealt with in two paragraphs on page 24 of this 133-page document. Let me acquaint you with those. Clause 83 says:The State undertakes that it will introduce into the State Parliament legislation to replace the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (Tas.). This will occur following formal consultation with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to ensure the appropriate management of Aboriginal heritage, including the maintenance of traditional and historic sites, uses and values in Tasmania.It goes on to clause 84:This Agreement is not intended to influence either current or future Native Title claims in any way.That is true: it is about woodchip corporation claims and land rights. It gives nothing to the indigenous people. It goes on:Where any government action to implement this Agreement could affect Native Title, that action will be taken in accordance with the Native Title Act 1993.There you have it: this regional forest agreement, even as regards indigenous values, has not involved an assessment—at least, it does not mention it if it did. It says that it will bring an act into the Tasmanian parliament, unspecified, and that this will occur following `consultation with the Aboriginal community to ensure the appropriate management', et cetera. When? Senator Troeth will be able to tell the committee when, I am sure. Has that been brought in in the last two years or is it going to come in?But what we are talking about here is the assessment of those values before we agree to the regional forest agreement. We are dealing here with clause 3 of the bill which says:RFA or Regional Forest Agreement means an agreement that is in force between the Commonwealth and a State in respect of a region or regions, being an agreement that satisfies all the following conditions:And part (ii) is:indigenous heritage values. . . This agreement does not do that. It does not satisfy any values at all. It says that something will be done at some future time—left to the Tasmanian government, and we all know about them. So it is a fraud. We are being asked to sign off on something which is clearly fraudulent in that it says one thing but does another. It purports to say that there is an assessment of indigenous heritage values in Tasmania, but in fact no assessment whatsoever has been done. What an appalling state of affairs.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Harris be agreed to.13:06:007902Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Neither Senator Harris nor I have had a response from the government representative on this matter. Madam Temporary Chair Knowles, I am sure you would agree with me, but let me not put you in an invidious position. I just say that any reasonable person would agree, and I would class you as a reasonable person, that that is a totally unacceptable situation.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, it would be wise if you did not attribute remarks to me that I have not made. Continue your remarks.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will change that and say `any reasonable person', Chair, if you do not want to be included in my terminology. Any reasonable person would say that this is not good enough. A reasonable person would say that the job of the person at the table, in this case Senator Troeth, when an amendment is brought up from the One Nation senator, Senator Harris, calling for non-indigenous heritage values to be, in his terms, treated equally but at least to be recognised, would be to give a rejoinder. I suggest to Senator Harris that, if this is not acceptable, he does move to add a new subclause 3 with the words `non-indigenous heritage values'. That would at least satisfy the clear wish he stated that we have acknowledgment of those heritage values and have them assessed.There is one problem, and I have been through this as far as indigenous values are concerned. The bill says that those values will be assessed in the formulation of a regional forest agreement:. . . being an agreement that satisfies all the following conditions:(a) the agreement was entered into having regard to assessments of the following matters that are relevant to the region or regions:. . . . . . . . . (ii) indigenous heritage values . . .I have established here that there have been no such assessments done. So the problem for Senator Harris and any other fair-minded person, I would say, is: firstly, getting the intent that he wishes expressed in the bill; but, secondly, believing that anything would be done about it, because this bill is a have. This bill is a farrago of failed promises. This bill is a steal when it comes to being fair-minded and aboveboard. This bill does not do what we are told it does. You only have to look at a regional forest agreement document like this to see that.It is not just the case in indigenous heritage, seeing we are on the matter. If you look at the clause, Chair, you will see that it also calls for environmental values—including old-growth wilderness, endangered species, national estate values and world heritage values—to be assessed. One would think when it comes to world heritage values that this would mean that there is not only an assessment but also an intention to take action. You see, Senator Harris, there is no point to a parliament which says it is going to sum up things but then fails to act on them. When it comes to world heritage in Tasmania, as Senator Troeth might be able to tell you—I do not want to be too certain about this—assessments were done of the world heritage values in Tasmania. There was a thing called a balanced panel of experts. That might have attracted Senator Troeth's attention, because she is keen on the word `balanced'. This panel had a long look at world heritage values in Tasmania and it found that they existed in places like the Huon Valley, the Picton Valley and the Weld Valley.I will tell you a few things about those places, Chair. The Picton and Weld are tributaries of the Huon, which rises above Lake Pedder and flows generally south and east to come out into the D'Entrecasteaux Channel. The Picton comes in from the south, from Precipitous Bluff on the southern edge of Tasmania, and the Weld comes down from the north, draining the Mount Anne Massif, rising in Lake Kemp. These valleys have between them some of the most stupendous forest in the world. Conservationists in Tasmania for quite some time had a sticker saying `Save the Weld', because they were drawing on the potential for that to lead to better things, and people see the world environment being rapidly eroded. Due to their actions, quite a large part of the upper catchment and middle catchment, but not the lower catchment, of the Weld has in fact been put into world heritage. Similarly with the Picton: some of the very upper catchment, which is not forested in terms of commercial forest, was in the world heritage area. Some more was added during the Green-Labor accord period of 1989-92 at the insistence of the Greens, representing the conservation community, which is quite large in Tasmania. It was a similar situation with the headwaters of the Huon.Unfortunately, Forestry Tasmania, working on the two big political parties in Tasmania, has been able to keep the wilderness areas upstream of the Picton-Huon junction out of protected status. This is the rafting part of the Huon River. It is particularly spectacular. It has Mount Weld rising to well over 1,200 metres on the north side and Mount Picton, snow-capped at the moment, with its sub-peak or double peak of Mount Riveau, overlooking it to the south. In terms of the cultural heritage that you talk about, Senator Harris, there is an ancient track up this valley called Mackay's Track. It was cut about the turn of the century through the forests, then through the button grass plains, across the Arthur Plains to the west and on to Port Davey, because of the concern that more people would die in shipwrecks because they starved to death after being washed up on the rugged west coast of Tasmania, far away from Hobart or Launceston. This was an access track. I guess it was also an access track to the scattered Huon pining settlements and for people prospecting at that time.The problem is that this balanced panel of experts looked at this country and said, `This is of world heritage value.' This panel included local university professors. Consequent upon that, international world heritage authorities looked at it and said, `Yes, this is of world heritage value.' Indeed, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, now called the World Conservation Union, wrote to the Prime Minister of the day and to the Premier of Tasmania and said, `These are world heritage value forests. Moreover, part of their value lies in the important role they have of protecting the wilderness values in the existing world heritage region'—the Federation Peak region to the immediate west, which is a mecca for bushwalkers, adventurers and lovers of scenery from Australia and beyond. So we had it established that these were world heritage values—that is what the assessment of the regional forest agreement process came up with—and therefore it would have been expected that a world heritage nomination would be forthcoming. What has happened since the regional forest agreement was signed? I note that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Robert Hill, is now in the chamber. I know that he is riveted by the importance of world heritage and will be able to answer this himself, so Senator Troeth can relax a little.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—I am relaxed.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—There you are: Senator Hill brings relaxation into lots of hearts and souls as he approaches. So we had an area of world heritage values, as Senator Hill knows because he went and stood in the middle of it, in the Huon Valley, an area of clear-felled forest that was part of this world heritage suite. He stood right smack in the middle of it and looked out on it and proclaimed about it. But what has happened? Instead of it getting world heritage value, it has been fed to the woodchippers. The plan is that these forests, which are of immense value not just to Tasmania and Australia but to the whole world, are to be logged under the regional forest agreement.If you look at the map attached to that agreement, you will see that is so. The very places that I have just been talking about, the Picton Valley, the Huon Valley and the Weld Valley, and indeed a lot more—I am just using these as examples here—of world heritage value significance are coloured a death-bringing green. Green in Tasmania means `to be logged'. Once again the whole system is shown up for the fake and the fraud that it is.Senator Hill would defend this if he could. He has not taken part in this debate because he cannot. He is, after all, the environment minister charged with the responsibility of not only assessing world heritage values but also protecting them! He is also charged, under an international covenant, with ensuring that we protect our world heritage forests in return for other people protecting theirs.What is Australia doing in this situation? It is defaulting. But Senator Hill waves regional forest agreements around wherever he might be when questions are brought up and says, `We have in Australia the best system in the world. We have ecologically sustainable logging. We are looking after conservation values, whoever might use those. Let me assume somebody else is proclaiming that those goals have been achieved.' But that other person is a fraud, because those aims are patently not being achieved.If they are, let us hear from that other person. If they are, let us hear from Senator Hill. If they are, let us hear from Senator Troeth. The reality is that they are not. I find the whole process contemptible because we have government saying one thing to the nation, which is much more high-minded about the value of forests, including world heritage value forests, and doing another. We have a Prime Minister who signed a document which purports to protect world heritage but in fact feeds it to the woodchippers. What can you think of a Prime Minister who does that? What can you think of a country which is led by a philosophy which allows that?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Harris be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.13:21:007904Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 1294 revised:(1) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA , add: (vi) national competition policy;This amendment deals with national competition policy. This amendment aims to add in the concept of RFAs being subject to national competition policy. This amendment aims to ensure that the hardwood plantation and farm forestry sectors can compete on a commercial footing with state forestry agencies. Some 23 types of subsidy to hardwood native forest logging have been identified. This is not a level playing field in anyone's language. The need for price and competition reforms in the state forestry agencies has long been recog nised as a major impediment to plantation investment.There are a number of reports which have identified this as a problem, such as the National Plantations Advisory Council report in 1991; a Victorian Auditor-General's report in 1993; two Industry Commission reports in 1993 and 1998; and KPMG's competition policy review of the Victorian Forests Act 1958, conducted in 1999. As competition policy is an act brought in by the Labor Party last time they were in government and it is a process and legislation supported by the current coalition government, we Democrats move this amendment and look forward to its support by all parties in the chamber.13:23:007905Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will not be supporting this amendment, as we consider that any reference to national competition policy is inappropriate in the context of this bill. While I am on my feet, I would like to point out to Senator Brown that I did make some statements on Quamby Bluff last week, but I suspect Senator Brown may have missed them in one of his frequent absences from the chamber. It is worth remarking that Senator Brown attends the chamber when he can make political mileage out of some subjects but he chooses not to attend the chamber when he has nothing to add to the chamber. I suggest that if he wants to find out the information that he requires on Quamby Bluff he should carefully read Hansard of last Thursday.13:23:007905Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Well, is that so? What Senator Troeth said—because I was here in the chamber and she has misrepresented me, but I do not care; at least we have got a statement out of her—was that she did not know anything about what was happening on Quamby Bluff at all and that one should go and look for a Mersey management plan. She obviously does not have it, does not know anything about it and cares even less. When I asked her specifically and repeatedly—and you will remember this, Chair—about the concerns of the Deloraine Aboriginal community as far as the imminent logging on Quamby Bluff in particular was concerned, as the representative at the table dealing with this issue here and now in effect she said, `I don't know. I can give you no information. Go and ask Forestry Tasmania,' which essentially means `Go and ask North', the woodchip corporation which makes donations to the coalition and is being handed control here by this process. That is not good enough.If all that Senator Troeth can do is fall back on the hoary old one about `Senator Brown wasn't in the chamber' when in fact he was—she was taking a guess at that, and came out wrong—what else are we to believe from her? She cannot even see what is happening in front of her face. So how are we to have any reliance on what she thinks might or might not be going on in the forests? I have never heard or seen anything like this failure to be at the table in a responsible and informative manner.Let us go back to the amendment. I will be supporting it. Senator Greig is quite right. Competition policy is the flavour of the decade, I suppose—certainly the flavour of the age; the level playing field is what we have to have. But, as is implied in Senator Greig's sensible amendment, it is not in this document. If the government wants it to apply to newsagents, hairdressers, grocers, telecommunications and everything else, why not to the way in which public assets are used? It does really. It says, `We have to have competition policy in the bureaucracy these days. That will downsize and get rid of a lot of people working in the bureaucracy.' The government has been effective, as was the previous Labor government, in achieving that end. So why not competition policy with the woodchip corporations? I will tell you why: because the big government handouts they get at state and federal levels would come under scrutiny. In fact, they would be stopped, and this rapacious woodchip industry would be instantly non-viable.Let us look at some of the things relating, firstly, to Tasmania as far as the regional forest agreements process is concerned. The senator at the table might be able to comment on this, but I am not holding my breath. Forestry Tasmania was given $76 million for new roads in new plantations, and this has led to huge destruction of forests in Tasmania, like the ones I have just been talking about. There are mountains of woodchips on the Burnie wharf, and next to them there are piles of plantation logs for export and job creation overseas. Could the government justify that? Has there been any sort of similar amount going to shore up the plantation based industry in Tasmania? I would be interested to know if the government is in the business of ensuring that the plantation industry is given the same benefits as the native forest destruction industry.One would think, in this age of competition policy, that neither industry would be getting handouts from government. We are in the marketplace, we are told, and it is survival of the fittest. Of course, there are big players in both sectors. But you only have to look at the way things are structured in Tasmania—and I am sure you will be acquainted with these figures, Chair—to see how unfair the whole process is and how oriented towards destruction of forests it is.Let me give you an example. If you want to cut down a native forest tree—it could be a giant in the world heritage value Huon River catchment that I was just talking about—and convert it into sawlogs, it will cost you in excess of $20 a tonne in royalty. If you want to cut it down and take it to the woodchip mill, it will cost you $12 a tonne in royalty. In other words, the government has built in an advantage for those who want to do the least value-adding, have the quickest forest rip-off for profit and have the least downstream processing. In other words, they are the least committed to creating jobs and keeping the profitability in-state, let alone in the region. Could Senator Troeth explain why that should be happening? Why is it that, in this world of competition, under this agreement, the Commonwealth is endorsing this process of giving the advantage to Harris Daishowa with its boardroom in Tokyo and the disadvantage to the small sawmills? It is a shocking state of affairs.Senator Troeth will tell us that she is in favour of regional Australia and the people who work in the bush. Well, is that true? Who is getting the advantage here—the small sawmill owner and worker? Or could it be that this is a massive golden handshake to corporations like North and Bunnings and Boral, with their boardrooms in the big cities? That is exactly what it is. No wonder they have $1 million, $2 million or $3 million a year to slip across to the Forest Protection Society to create this total myth that it is an independent organisation fighting for the rights and livelihoods of people in the bush. It is a highly subsidised front for the big woodchip corporations. They in turn are getting much more than that in de facto subsidies through the royalty structure, if you do not go on to looking at such things as $76 million for new roads and new plantations in Tasmania.I would like the committee to hear from the government how much it has committed or already spent of the $6 million allocated to new roads, and on which roads. What you will find, if we were to get into a debate of substance here and get information instead of obfuscation, is that in fact these roads are subsidising the woodchippers. That is pure and simple—$6 million worth here. It is not going to the plantation industry; it is going to the big woodchip corporations so they can push further and harder into remote areas that have never been logged to rip out the forests and to fatten their profit lines. I might add that, as far as that is concerned, the flow-on does not even seep back to Tasmania. You would have to have a pretty wide definition of the trickle-down effect to imagine that because 97 per cent or so of the shareholders—if you take it on a fair average equivalent of population—are outside Tasmania. So all these government subsidies float across Bass Strait to improve the profit line for the already wealthy against the interests of the small home-grown industry, which Senator Troeth says she is interested in looking after. We will get no answer on the $6 million, Mr Temporary Chairman. You know how this process works.With respect to the $57 million committed to so-called intensive forest management, how much of that will be spent on replacing native forests with plantations? That is what the big woodchippers are in the business of doing. Is there a breakdown of this proposed expenditure of $57 million? This is taxpayers' money. This is the time when we as elected representatives have to scrutinise the spending of taxpayers' money, and this is no pittance—it is $57 million. Mr Howard signed on the dotted line to give this to the big woodchippers. I might add that I suppose it comes out of a different cupboard—I do not know, but I would like to see the books. On the other hand, you will find that a quarter of a million or half a million dollars as each election comes round goes to the Liberal Party, from guess who—North Pty Ltd or Bunnings Pty Ltd or Boral Pty Ltd, one way or another. I ask you, Mr Temporary Chairman: what is a fair-minded person to think of that? I asked visiting American economist Hazel Henderson about that over dinner here at Parliament House some months ago. She described it as `corruption'. I think she went on to make that point.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Who paid for the dinner?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I did. But there you go, I am telling you what happened. You will not find out what happens with the $57 million, Senator Forshaw. I ask: can the parliamentary secretary provide a progress report on the expenditure of the $13 million provided for employment and industry development? That would be interesting because, as the parliamentary secretary knows, despite the $13 million going in that direction to create jobs, 400-plus jobs have already been lost. So where is the money going? Who is getting the advantage there? Are we to allow this to simply float by—$13 million worth of public money to create jobs when so far we are at, I think, minus 480 jobs? What is going on here? How dare this government simply stare into space and refuse to give answers to this committee on this matter. Worse, how dare it say it is not going to support Senator Greig's amendment. Its philosophy is competition policy. It is not mine, and I dare say it possibly is not even Senator Greig's—I do not know; he can speak for himself. But that is the government policy, so why not put it in here? I well tell you why not: because the big woodchip corporations have lines of communication with this government, to the detriment of almost everybody else in the industry, and they want to be excluded from the treatment that everybody else gets.They will expound it from the rooftops, but when it comes down to their getting tens of millions of dollars through this deal, indirectly if you like, with no ostensible public benefit and no answer from the government, it fits into place that the government wants to oppose this amendment too. There is an enormous hypocrisy in the situation we see unfolding here, and that is being kind about it. It is a total failure of public accountability in even the broadest sense of that word.13:38:007907Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will not be supporting the amendment moved by Democrat Senator Greig. The other day, when we dealt with an amendment from Senator Greig which proposed to put into the objects clause of the bill a reference to national competition policy principles, we opposed that and we outlined our reasons in some detail then. Our position is the same here.This amendment seeks to put a reference in the definition clause of the bill with respect to adherence to competition policy principles. I will add a few remarks to what I said the other day. In my previous remarks, I quoted from Senator Bartlett's first speech. It was a very good speech, in which he put forward some reasons as to why one should not slavishly follow the principles of national competition policy. On this occasion I will add some additional remarks of other Democrat senators. Firstly, in a speech given on 26 June 1995 in respect of the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995, Senator Lees, quoting the Australian Consumers Association, said:Competition policy must be set against the backdrop of the society in which it operates and be in harmony with other social policies. The overall public interest includes such factors as social equity and the natural environment.Senator Lees went on to say:The Democrats wholeheartedly support that premise. At the conclusion of her speech, Senator Lees said:Of course, looking through the Hilmer rose-tinted glasses we are supposed to believe that competition will ensure that markets do not fail. Of course, only an ideologue would believe in that.In a further speech on 19 November 1997 on the Farm Household Support Amendment (Restart and Exceptional Circumstances) Bill, Senator Woodley said:In fact, I think that globalisation and competition policy, which we often laud as the answer to all of our problems, is really proving—to me, at least, and I think to many other people—to be simply not working. We keep on projecting globalisation and competition policy as though we were all playing on a level playing field. I know that the rhetoric says we agree there isn't one.In a further speech on 27 June 1995, again in respect of the Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995, Senator Lees said in her concluding remarks:We say that competition does not matter or is a secondary consideration because our first concern is to see that low income earners or people with disabilities, for example, get priority access to a particular service or that a particular service is shared out equally amongst all of us. That is what communities do. That is why we have governments. We have priorities beyond competition—priorities which we look to the government to uphold. If competition becomes the be-all and end-all, not only do consumers lose out but we also abrogate those community priorities and responsibilities.Having professed those sentiments, I would have thought the last thing the Democrats would do would be to jump onto the national competition policy bandwagon and apply it in an absolute manner to the situation in the forestry industry and to forests generally.You have to ask: what is the motivation? Why would they do this? Why would they put forward this amendment? They are not putting it forward because they believe inherently in national competition policy; they do not. They actually say the opposite. They say that social considerations, community considerations and environmental considerations have to be taken into account and be pre-eminent against purely market competition considerations. One has to ask why this amendment has been put forward. Clearly, it has been done to try to nobble the RFA process, because the Democrats themselves know—and Senator Brown knows, and we concede—that you cannot sit the principles of national competition policy straight over the top of the forest and timber industry in this country and have total adherence. It is not going to happen.If this legislation were to require that to be done in respect of all aspects of the negotiation of RFAs, then it would cripple the industry virtually overnight, and that is the ultimate objective of the Democrats and of the Greens in this regard. For that reason we oppose the proposition. It is inflexible; it seeks to apply a straightjacket to the timber industry into the negotiation of RFAs.But it is not as if the issues that are relevant to national competition policy are not considered in the context of RFAs—they are. They are considered in the very way in which the Democrats have in the past said they should be considered; that is, they are considered alongside and in harmony with environmental issues, the needs of communities, social needs and so on. The way in which they are to be considered is in accordance with the principles and goals outlined in the national forest policy statement.It is because of the amendments that we moved, which were carried by the Senate—and I appreciate the support of the Democrats and the Greens on that—to put into this bill this primary object to have adherence to the principles of the national forest policy statement that we will actually get these issues recognised in a proper context, not in some narrow, strict and, as I said, straitjacket approach. In reference to wood pricing and allocation, page 10 of the national forest policy statement says:Wood pricing and allocationThe pricing and allocation system for wood from public native forests has a major bearing on the structure and efficiency of the wood products industry and on the return to the community from use of a publicly owned resource. The State Governments will encourage the use of logs for their highest net value-added end use. Accordingly, they will adopt the following principles as the general basis for pricing and allocation arrangements for wood from public native forests: - Prices will be market based, at least cover the full cost of efficient management (including regeneration) attributable to wood production, include a fair return on capital, and provide an adequate return to the community from the use of a public resource.- Harvesting rights will reflect security of supply for wood users, will be clearly defined, and will be transferable when this does not result in the creation of excessive market power.- The allocation system will be flexible and will involve competitive bidding arrangements for appropriate amounts of the resource, thus enabling the entry of new processors and allowing small operators to compete for niche markets.Forest services have made significant changes to their pricing and allocation systems. They will continue to develop their systems to reflect the foregoing principles, including approaches involving competitive bidding systems where regional wood markets exist. Where competitive markets are not achievable, prices set through administratively determined allocation systems should at least cover the efficient costs of wood production and provide an adequate return to the community.. Forest services will, where feasible, allocate a substantial proportion of harvesting rights through competitive bidding, with varying time frames and varying wood volumes, to allow opportunities for the entry of new processors and niche operators.. Following the current review of competition policy, the State Governments will consider options for increasing the public accountability of their commercial forest operations, including through the possible application of the principles and provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974.. The pricing and allocation policies for public plantations will be determined on the basis of commercial criteria, although the Governments acknowledge that some plantations established in the past for other than purely commercial reasons may not meet these criteria.It is clear that, in the negotiation and the establishment of RFAs, issues such as pricing, value of resource, et cetera are to be considered—obviously, they have to be considered—and, as is indicated in what I have just read out, there is a recognition that strictly applied competition principles will not always be able to be applied.Therefore, we believe that the appropriate way in which this issue is to be addressed is as we have done, and that is to ensure through this legislation that there is recognition in the Commonwealth legislation of the goals and principles of the national forest policy statement. We moved that amendment. It was carried by the Senate, and it will be part of the act. That is sufficient. In our view, it is not appropriate to simply try to frustrate, nobble and, indeed, destroy the process of negotiating and managing RFAs by doing what the Democrats seek to do in their amendment. On that basis, and for all the reasons that I have advanced earlier, we cannot support the amendment.13:51:007909Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I heard nothing there that stands up to the principle of consistency. The national competition policy is, as I said earlier, something that is being pushed on all fronts in the public and the private sector with great hardships for many people, including closure of business and loss of jobs. But when it comes to the logging industries, we get a different standard from both the government and the opposition. As you know, Mr Temporary Chairman, I asked Senator Troeth, who is stonewalling—I guess, brickwalling—for the government about the $76 million of taxpayers' money that is being handed across ostensibly for the service of the big woodchip corporations in Tasmania.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—What?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is exactly what I would like to know, Senator Kemp. The problem is that your colleague has no answer to that question of yours—no answer at all. She is glued to the chair. When I asked about $76 million of taxpayers' money in new roads, plantation establishment and so-called intensive forestry management, she was unable to account for a cent of it. She does not know. Can you imagine going to other sectors of competitive industry and a government being mute about why the advantage is being given to a particular section as against everybody else? We are not talking about small amounts.I was in the Tasmanian parliament in 1990 when the then Labor Premier, Michael Field, took over a quarter of a billion dollars of debt by Forestry Tasmania and transferred it into the public debt. Far from being competitive, what that said was that this was an industry which was costing the taxpayer millions. The taxpayers of Tasmania were actually paying to have their forests cut down, carted to the woodchip mills, and sent to the profit-makers in Japan. And what did Labor do in that state? It hid this debt in the public debt. If you take five per cent, as a rule of thumb, interest to be paid on that debt each year, you come up with a figure of $25 million. If it is $250 million, you come up with a figure of $12½ million a year. That is $12½ million a year in little Tasmania that is not available for hospitals, for police and security, for education, for national parks, for developing clean, green industries, or for creating job programs.Under the Greens' local employment initiatives in Tasmania, for each $1,000 you spend, you have created a job. As a rule of thumb, that is 12,500 jobs a year going down the gurgler because of Labor's secrecy and complicity with the woodchip industry in Tasmania at that time, and nothing has changed under the current Premier, Jim Bacon.I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, if it is so that the regional forest agreement in Western Australia has handed 50,000 hectares of forest in approved reserves to the logging industry as part of the regional forest agreement signed over there by Prime Minister Howard. At the same time, our Prime Minister is handing out $20 million to prop up the big woodchip corporations by paying for infrastructure out of the public purse, which enables them to get in and chop down the forests of Western Australia. Is that the figure that is agreed to here? What is it for, what is the accountability, and why isn't it going to the competitive plantation industries?If we look at East Gippsland—as Senator Troeth will know if she is an avid reader of the Age—her colleague down there, Premier Kennett, allowed one government contract to be signed which gave a woodchipper East Gippsland forests at nine cents a tonne, hugely subsidised by the public purse under this arrangement. We are talking about East Gippsland, where Mr Howard has signed the regional forest agreement but has shown total inability to follow that through to ensure that those forests, if they have to be cut down, give a proper return to the people of Victoria—let alone create jobs in Victoria.Here we have got not millions of dollars, not tens of millions of dollars, but hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money going into an industry which is already not paying its way and is not competitive, except by the largesse of taxpayers. It is a sleight of hand. It is not just the profit line you look at, and it is not just how this industry's shares are going; it is what is put into the industry from the taxpayers' purse to build the roads for them, to establish the plantations, and to carry out so-called intensive forest management—which, as you will know from my earlier contributions, means, in the case of Tasmania where clear-felling occurs, wholesale chainsawing of ancient forest ecosystems, firebombing them and then poisoning them. And that is subsidised.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Come on, wind it up.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Kemp interjects, but he of all people should know better. He has a responsibility to the public, hasn't he? Senator Troeth has been unable to answer; maybe he can answer about this total dereliction of responsibility. Senator Greig comes along and says, `Let's expose them to competition policy,' and both Labor and the Liberals say, `No, we won't expose to competition policy the woodchip corporations'—which, I add, are putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into their electoral coffers.Progress reported.Questions Without Notice791079107910Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the minister aware that the latest quarterly trade figures show a goods and services trade deficit of $4.7 billion, an increase of $727 million from the previous quarter? Is the minister aware that exports of two of Australia's most important commodities, coal and iron ore, are down, whilst imports of elaborately transformed manufactured goods continue to increase? Isn't it true that this increase in the trade deficit continues a trend which has been evident since 1997?7911Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Senator Cook has asked the same question a number of times in recent months. The circumstances remain very much the same as those in the past—that is, basically, he has to take into account that our principal markets have gone through periods of historical low. In fact the figures that I have show that recent growth in Australia's major trading partners has been at its lowest level in 25 years. If you have your principal markets suffering from very significant weakness—which I would have thought was beyond dispute; even Senator Cook would have heard of the Asian economic crisis—that obviously significantly contributes to what he is putting to the Senate.The other factor is of course that commodity prices have been exceedingly low as well. So we have the double jeopardy of weak markets and low prices, and that translates into trading difficulties. Apart from the fact that, as our partners recover—and there is no doubt that that recovery is starting to take place—improvement will flow from that, the other important factor is the capacity of an economy to deal with external circumstances that are beyond its control to effect. The great distinction now between an economy managed under the Howard government and the economy as it was previously managed under Labor is that the fundamentals are now so sound that we can withstand these periodic stresses. I will just give you a comparison. We now offer—in these difficult circumstances as far as trade is concerned—a strong fiscal position reinforced by the 1999-2000 budget, a sound and credible framework for monetary policy and ongoing structural reforms making the economy more efficient and flexible.If there was a concern—and that seems to be the purpose of Senator Cook's question—then one would not have expected Standard and Poor's on 18 May to upgrade Australia's credit rating to AA plus. Why did they do that? Because, as they said, of favourable economic performance and prospects as a result of economic reforms reinforcing resilience, flexibility, diversity and competitive ness. I remind Senator Cook that that AA plus rating is the highest rating Australia has had since October 1989 when the rating was downgraded because of concerns about these issues under the then Labor administration. So circumstances have changed very significantly, and Australia is much better able now under sound economic management to withstand difficulties that do present from time to time in external circumstances.Rather than dwell on what is apparent to everyone, I would have thought, Senator Cook would be better contributing to the sorts of reforms that are necessary to ensure that Australia can withstand external circumstances—another sort of reforms, as I have said, that this government has been implementing, almost all of which have been opposed by the Labor opposition. If Labor was to support this government in some of its major economic reforms, then even Labor could take a little credit for the upgrading in Australia's credit rating, and then we would all be better off. (Time expired)7911Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Hill gives the Asian economic crisis as an excuse. Isn't it true that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer both have said that they fireproofed the Australian economy from the Asian economic crisis, and therefore it is no excuse?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—What would you do—go and run another $10 billion deficit?3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Get the debt truck out!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You'd buy Telstra back again, would you?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Shouting across the chamber at each other is disorderly. Senator Cook has the call to ask his question.RF4Senator COOK—Isn't it true that the current account deficit for 1998-99 was $32 billion, or 42 per cent higher than for 1997-98? How many more current account deficit records does the Howard government expect to set, and what do you think will be the level to which the current account will sink?7911Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In attempting to create a doom and gloom scenario, Senator Cook should preface his question by saying Australia is going through an unprecedented econom ic boom. That is what we are experiencing. There are difficulties, yes, I concede, in relation to the current account deficit, and I have given the reasons for that. As I said, the contrast between how we manage that under Howard as compared to Mr Hawke and Mr Keating is quite dramatic. The CAD outcome is consistent with the budget forecast for the CAD to average 5½ per cent of GDP in 1998-99. It has risen now to 6.2 per cent. Under Labor it was significantly higher again. The question is whether the fundamentals of the Australian economy are such that they can deal with external circumstances as they present from time to time, and the contrast is that, under the Howard government, we have put ourselves in a position where we can do so.79127912Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSON BX5TASLP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Can the minister inform the Senate of the community's continued optimism in the Australian economy? How has the Howard government's responsible management of the economy contributed to increased business confidence?7912Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That is the other side of the ledger. Whilst Labor talks doom and gloom and tries to talk the economy down through people such as Senator Cook, in fact the Australian people are recognising boom conditions through sound economic government. The Howard government has turned around years of budget deficits under the former Labor government. Under our management, the budget has now been in surplus for three consecutive years. Bear in mind, Madam President, that this achievement came after inheriting a $10 billion budget black hole from Labor. The fact that we have been able to turn that economy around, as I said in answers to Senator Cook, has helped us withstand the Asian economic crisis.The record speaks for itself. The Australian economy is growing at a rate of 4.8 per cent—a stunning outcome, given the economic turmoil being experienced by every other country in our region. Almost half a million jobs have been created since the election of the Howard government. Unemployment is now down to seven per cent—the best result since 1990 and in stark contrast to Labor's record, when unemployment reached 11.2 per cent. Inflation has now been under two per cent for more than two years—the best sustained period of low inflation for more than 30 years. Interest rates are also at their lowest level for 30 years. A peak of 17 per cent under Labor should not be forgotten and can be compared to around 6.5 per cent under the coalition. The cuts in interest rates since the election of the Howard government represent a saving of about $330 a month on a $100,000 home loan. Australian businesses, both small and large, are also benefiting from this low inflation, low interest rate environment.It is not surprising, although Senator Cook should perhaps dwell upon it, to see the index of Australian economic performance released today by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry showing another surge in business confidence. In the words of the chamber:Business optimism continues to build. The sense of an impending fall in activity, which was evident in the survey over the previous year, has now almost entirely disappeared. In its place is a renewed confidence in the Australian economy, which is reflected in expectations of significantly higher levels of sales, employment and investment.This increase in business confidence is further good news for the Australian economy and confirms that we are on track to create even more jobs. There is no doubt in the minds of Australia's business leaders as to what has created this strong economic performance. I again quote the Chamber of Commerce and Industry:In the final analysis, the Australian economy remains buoyant, and this remains due to the policies which have been adapted specifically aimed at creating faster rates of growth.I finish by quoting Senator Faulkner's new friend, Graham Richardson, who said on Friday:While it pains me to say it, politically John Howard is doing brilliantly at the moment . . . you've got to say this: when it comes to politics, he's playing a blinder right now. All the evidence confirms that this Prime Minister has not only got the politics right, he has got the economics right as well.79137913Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Given that the Howard government has presided over the loss of just under $17 billion worth of export income in just two years and has managed to rack up a further $35 billion in foreign debt—to $228 billion—in just over three years, how does the government also explain a 35 per cent increase in household debt, from $15,270 each in March 1996 to $20,554 in March 1999? Just how many more debt records does the Howard government intend to break under the guise of having `fireproofed' the economy?7913Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Howard government does have many records. One would be the record growth in the economy. We have an economy which is the envy of the world. There have been many quotes on just how well the Australian economy is going, compared with the economies of our competitors. On that basis, we can certainly claim a record of sorts. We can claim that we have the lowest interest rates in memory. I do not think we have seen interest rates at levels that we are currently experiencing since the 1960s. We can point to the very low levels of inflation—again another record. One record that we are particularly proud of is that we are seeing a productivity performance in this country which, by any measure, is quite astonishing.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam President, I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance. The question went to the 35 per cent increase in household debt. Despite lower interest rates, there has been a 35 per cent increase in household debt. The minister has not attempted to even address the question I put to him.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There were other aspects of the question.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—It went to household debt.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There were other matters in the preliminaries to the question. I remind the minister of the question. There is still nearly three minutes for him to reply.WW4Senator KEMP—I think that if Senator Sherry examines his question carefully he will see that there were a number of issues raised in the question. One was foreign debt, one was household debt and one was a general question on records. Senator Sherry, it was a poorly worded question and I am proceeding to give you a little overview of the Australian economy. I have pointed to the record lows in interest rates, the record lows in inflation, the very high levels of productivity that this economy is enjoying, which again I think are the envy of the world. Senator Sherry—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, you should direct your remarks through the chair, not across the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. We are also seeing, at least compared with the 1980s, significant rises in real wages. This government takes particular pride in the fact that real wages have been able to rise, of course consequent on the very effective management of the economy. Senator Sherry pointed to issues such as household debt. I think one of the reasons why we are seeing people prepared to borrow more is that interest rates are so low. There is a Labor Party solution to this issue. The Labor Party, when it was in government, decided that the way to stop borrowing was to jack up interest rates to 17 per cent plus and going north. That was your solution. What we are seeing is an economy in which unemployment is falling, employment is growing, real wages are rising and asset prices are rising, and it is not surprising that people feel better off.Senator Sherry has given me a chance to speak about some of the reasons why this government is particularly proud of the way this economy has been managed. The Labor Government was able to stop borrowing in this economy by jacking up interest rates to very high levels. That is not a solution that this government favours. This government's approach to the management of the economy is to get the fundamentals right, which we are doing. Senator Sherry, despite your attempt and the attempt of Senator Cook to badmouth the economy, to talk down the economy, we are particularly proud of the performance of this economy; where there are issues, this government has shown a great capacity to tackle those issues, including, I say in conclusion, the massive amount of debt which was left by the Labor government when it went out of office.7914Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—There has been no attempt by Senator Kemp to answer the questions in relation to foreign debt and household debt. Is the minister further aware that in the three years this Liberal government has been in office Australia's household saving ratio, another fundamental, has plunged from six per cent to less than one per cent? Is this in line with the government's record of running up as much foreign debt and household debt as possible, thus ensuring a run-down in household savings?7914Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Sherry seemed to be a bit confused with the question. It was foreign debt of households you were talking about in the end, Senator Sherry. I would have to say that, whoever is drafting these questions, they have to be more carefully worded. For the Labor Party to stand up in this chamber—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The question was very clear. It went to foreign and household debt and running down household savings—relevance yet again. He will not answer the questions.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—I think, if Senator Sherry carefully examines the question he first asked, he will note that he made an error in the way the question was asked. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party is standing up and talking about savings—national savings—when there is no argument that national savings collapsed under the Labor government. One of the many issues that this government has been determined to address is the issue of national savings. The best way a government can address the issue of national savings is to get its books in order.79147914Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services. Will the minister outline government initiatives which are seeking to break the cycle of welfare dependence in the community? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals, and what would be their impact?7914Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I thank Senator Ferris for her question. It is clear to anybody who has been looking at the social policy of the last few years that Labor has been left at the back of the van. Our government has been committed to improving opportunities for participation in the economic and the social life of our community and for providing a safety net of income support for all Australians. The concept of mutual obligation, which seems to have been recently discovered by the ALP and put under another name to show that they are somehow trying to catch up with the cart, is multifaceted. It is much broader than the simplistic statements of the opposition would have us believe. For example, Work for the Dole is a very successful and worthwhile program, to which the government is absolutely committed. The government has expanded it to school leavers and to older people aged 25 to 34. Some people think that is mutual obligation. That is only one element. It is just part of a multifaceted approach.The government is not intending to be limited to a `one size fits all' approach in its determination to break the destructive cycle of welfare dependency, which is the product of 13 years of Labor neglect. It is a bit late now for those opposite to be running around trying to talk about jumping on the cart. Mutual obligation, for example, can include somebody attending literacy classes if they have been found to have problems in the literacy area. It can include having your children immunised in order to receive a payment from Social Security—very important for the wellbeing of future generations. It can be attending at counselling if that is what it takes.The government is at the moment setting out on a parenting payment trial which will prevent, we believe, long-term welfare dependency. It is to assist parents on income support to plan for their future return to work. It is very important that strategies for parenting payment recipients reduce the risk of poverty, skills atrophy and transmission of disadvantage, dependence and social exclusion to the next generation. Currently the department is trialling a program for parenting payment customers, but can I emphasise that these are for parents with children at home, both single parents and partnered parents. The parenting payment customers will undertake a compulsory interview to exchange information with departmental officials about future work plans, education and training options, and child-care and family support services. This is very similar to what is already provided for when a lone parent or a partnered parent has a youngest child approaching the age of 16.If you think about the reality of mothers' lives, they are likely to have lost many of their skills by the time their youngest child is 16. They certainly will have lost confidence in themselves and their own abilities and they will have lost job networks. So we are trialling interviews that will help women to start planning for their long-term future. It is important to recognise that the labour force participation rate of lone parents is 51.2 per cent. The labour force participation rate of partnered parents is 59.8 per cent. In other words, parents believe that they can be both parents and in the work force, and they are doing that now. We want to make sure that some parents do not get left behind and lose their skills and confidence while they are caring for their children. That is a very important goal.When it comes to people with disabilities, the government is concerned with the growth of the number of people on disability support pension, which largely occurred during the years of Labor neglect. I would have plenty more to tell you if I only had the chance. (Time expired)7915Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—Madam President, I have a supplementary question for Senator Newman. Could the minister give me and share with the chamber any more information on the disability support pension?Opposition senators interjecting—7915Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The opposition is very reluctant to hear what the realities are about disability support pension growth. Mr Latham and Mr Swan have been making a career for themselves in the last week or so in misrepresenting the true situation. Under Labor, there was an increase in disability support pension recipients of 22.8 per cent in the years 1993 to 1996, an approximately 7.6 per cent per annum increase. Under the coalition, between 1996 and 1999 there has been an increase of 15.7 per cent; that is around a five per cent per annum increase. As a result, the long-term projections of the demand for disability support pension have been revised from something like 930,000 recipients by the year 2000 to about 750,000. It does rather cut the ground from under the feet of those who have been making arguments. I am afraid I have not had time to really give the answer. (Time expired)79157915Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation, Senator Herron. Can the minister confirm that there are currently over 2,200 members of the stolen generations who have flagged likely litigation, and that one current case under way in the Northern Territory has cost over $6 million with no finalisation in sight? Can the minister also confirm that the 1999-2000 budget papers indicate a contingent liability of `hundreds of millions of dollars' from these cases? Will the Howard government now take the action advocated by both the Australian Labor Party and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and sit down and negotiate in good faith with members of the stolen generations?7915Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Bolkus for the question. I have seen press reports that there were 2,000 cases pending. But the government does not believe that cash compensation is an appropriate response to this issue. The government also does not support setting up any sort of tribunal to issue cash payments. It is the government's view that people wanting cash compensation should pursue their legal claims through the courts. The federal government is not alone in this view. No state or territory government has set up a compensation scheme. Following the outcome in the recent New South Wales case, Premier Bob Carr said he did not support cash payments to compensate for past injustices. He said:We have got to move beyond the idea that we can do it by making a cash payment to compensate for things that happened in our past.I note that Senator Ridgeway commented on the issue last week. He said:. . . the question of reparation for suffering is something that needs to be dealt with by the courts.Even the Queensland government does not support cash compensation. Last week, on 27 August, in settling a claim with a former separated child, the government did not pay monetary compensation as part of that settlement. Cash payments are impractical and do not solve the problems associated with forced separation. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report itself said:. . . assisting family reunions is the most significant and urgent need of separated families.That is why family reunion is the cornerstone of the government's $63 million response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. It includes the Family Reunion Program administered through ATSIC, and separate funding for access to records, personal and family counselling, oral history recording and culture and language maintenance. Furthermore, the government is providing a record $2.2 billion annually in indigenous specific programs and assisting indigenous Australians to overcome the historical and continuing disadvantages they face.This annual funding, which goes towards 390,000 indigenous Australians, includes the government's priority areas of $222.5 million on health, $365 million on housing and infrastructure, $957.3 million on education and employment and $60.4 million for economic development. As well, $216 million goes to native title and land rights, $60.5 million on law and justice and $45.3 million for cultural protection. On top of this, another $48 million is available every year forever from the $1.3 billion land fund set up to help indigenous people buy land. The government is commit ted to assisting indigenous Australians overcome the disadvantage they face today as a result of past injustices.There are cases before the Federal Court in the Northern Territory and it is therefore inappropriate to make any comment in relation to them. It was not the government which instigated these proceedings, but the plaintiffs. The government is only acting on behalf of taxpayers in defending this case. It is not just this government that has defended this sort of litigation. The previous federal government defended the original litigation in the case of Kruger and Bray, which was based on constitutional issues. The New South Wales government also recently successfully defended similar litigation.7916Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question, and I suggest the minister actually try answering the question rather than referring solely to cash payments. The solution may very well be in all those other mechanisms you mention, Minister. In light of this week's resolution from the government's independent advisory council, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, will the Howard government now reconsider its opposition to last week's Labor amendments to the parliamentary resolution which called:. . . 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 . . . 7916Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The government has already responded to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report in providing $63 million. As I said previously, the primary recommendation of that report said:That we should assist family reunions is the most significant and urgent need of separated families.And that is what we are doing.79167916Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. I refer to the collapsing orange roughy fishery and in particular to incidents on the South Tasman Rise. Is it the case that, despite five warnings and extensive diplomatic pressure, New Zealand and South Africa continued to raid and repeatedly plunder straddling stocks of orange roughy? How will the government ensure other countries work within an agreed and sustainable national management framework as international law requires? Next time this is brought to the government's attention, will the minister send Australian enforcement to demonstrate how serious the government is about unreported, unregulated and illegal fish catch movement?7917Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am surprised by aspects of the question, because Australia and New Zealand have both agreed to ban fishing on the South Tasman Rise until a new regional agreement has been negotiated. In relation to other countries, certainly there was a recent incident when three South African vessels and one vessel registered in Belize were discovered fishing a spawning aggregation of orange roughy in an area of the STR which was very close to the Australian fishing zone. As a result of the discovery and diplomatic actions by Australia, the governments of both South Africa and Belize cooperated in bringing the fishing to a halt. Some may argue that that is an almost unprecedented level of cooperation in this area. The South African government advised Australia that it had revoked the licences of its vessels, while Belize deregistered its vessel. I would have thought that the prompt action of South Africa and Belize in relation to the matter should have been applauded. It was certainly deserving of being applauded, and that sort of international cooperation by states is something that the Australian government would want to encourage.We do say that all countries must recognise their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the United Nations fish stocks agreement covering highly migratory and straddling fish stocks in particular, and that it is the responsibility of governments to ensure their flag state vessels use appropriate fishing practices and manage the fish stocks responsibly. That is the approach of the Australian government, and when instances occur, as has been referred to, on the high seas it is good to see that diplomatic action can result in responsible states taking action against fishing vessels fishing in an inappropriate way.The issue of orange roughy is important. Historically in Australia it has not always been a happy story. I reflect upon the fact that, in 1990, fishing efforts reached a high of 53,000 tonnes whereas the current TAC is something just over 5,000 tonnes. That is a demonstration in itself of the extent to which Australian vessels at that time over-fished the resource within Australian waters. Australia was warned and has now acted, and we would urge other states to join with us cooperatively to ensure that fishing on the high seas is also conducted in a responsible way.7917Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, without conclusive stock assessment, how can the government set quota for 150-year-old fish? Why doesn't the government close down the orange roughy fishery until it has defensible scientific evidence that it is sustainable?7917Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Perhaps I did not make it clear: in relation to fishing on the high seas in the vicinity of Australia—and I use the example of the South Tasman Rise—Australia and New Zealand both agreed on a voluntary basis to ban fishing until the stocks have been adequately assessed and new regional arrangements consistent with the sustainable fishing of those stocks are put in place. In relation to fishing within Australian waters, those stock assessments have been taken and, as a result of those stock assessments, the TACs have been very substantially reduced. That is the very point I was making.79177917Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Minister, on the commencement of the GST next year, how will taxpayers determine the capital value of an incomplete commercial property as at 30 June 2000? Will that valuation include just cost to date, or could it also include cost to date plus the discounted value of future rental returns in that valuation?7918Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for the question. With a property that is not completed you have the right to value the property on 30 June and the GST applies to the completion materials used after that particular date. That is the general principle. On the other matters that you raise, Senator, I will check with the Australian Taxation Office and provide you with an answer.7918Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. While the minister is checking that issue, could he also take on notice this question: in regard to an incomplete commercial property development as at 30 June next year—which is proposed to be sold upon completion—how will the profit attribution factor be calculated on the pre- and post-GST profit components?7918Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will check with the Australian Taxation Office, Senator.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I call Senator Brown.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Can I proceed on a point of order first, Madam President? You will have noticed that the One Nation senator also stood because there is confusion as to who gets this question after Thursday's reallocation of a question to the Democrats. Could you help the chamber by furnishing any documents you have to show the arrangement between the government and the Democrats in reallocating extra questions to the Democrats?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. It is a matter for the parties to organise any agreement on questions and I suggest you take it up with the appropriate whips. But you may ask your question now I have called you.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—On another point of order, Madam President, you made a ruling based on what you said was an agreement which can have involved only the Democrats and the coalition. I wonder whether you would cite that agreement, because you have made that ruling and you gave them the question on Thursday.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not make a ruling on a point of order on Thursday, because there is no order of the Senate which relates to the order in which questions are asked. I thought I had made that plain on Thursday. There is no point of order in relation to this matter. It is a matter to be taken up outside the chamber amongst the parties involved, including you.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You made the ruling on Thursday—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I did not make a ruling, Senator.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—You gave the question to the Democrats.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I can only make a ruling on an order of the Senate. You may ask a question if you wish.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes, I will proceed with that. We will get somewhere there.79187918Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, following the SBS TV Dateline program last week and a report by Anthony Balmain in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age which says, amongst other things, that the Australian government colluded with Indonesian and other governments to fraudulently deny the people of West Papua an act of choice on the basis of one person, one vote. The government at that time, in 1969, held a number of documents which showed the process to be fraudulent. Will the government undertake an independent inquiry into these extraordinarily important and damning documents? If it will not do an independent one, will it support a parliamentary inquiry to the same end and a review of the United Nations decision to accept that fraudulent process of imposing military rule on West Papua?7918Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The 1969 act of free choice was accepted by the United Nations. Australia and all other members of the UN in 1969 accepted the result and Australia recognises Irian Jaya as part of Indonesia. In our view, it is not for the present government to comment on or explain the policies of the then Australian government, the United Nations and the international community in relation to Irian Jaya, which were made in the context of international support for completing the process of Indonesia's decolonisation from Dutch rule. Of course we strongly encourage Indonesia to ensure that international human rights standards are maintained in Irian Jaya and that grievances are redressed through dialogue and consultation.7919Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The question is whether the minister is acquainted with a UN document, available to the Australian government before the 1969 so-called act of free choice which was nothing of the sort, which commented that personal political views of the UN team were that 95 per cent of the Irianese, that is the West Papuans, supported the independence movement and that the act of free choice was a mockery. I ask: how can this government live with an act that was a mockery, that is now known to be a mockery and which keeps civil rights and freedoms denied to two million people, our close neighbours to the north of this country?7919Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I know of the public suggestions and the references to which Senator Brown is referring. However, it remains the position of our government anyway that it is not appropriate for us to seek to explain the decisions of a government some 30 years ago. The important issue now is how to go forward, and the Australian government takes the view that Irian Jaya is part of Indonesia and that we should work with Indonesia to do our best to ensure the maintenance of high human rights standards and the sorts of values that we believe to be important. To seek to reconstruct the past we do not think could serve any positive or useful purpose for the people of Irian Jaya or anybody else.79197919Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that HIH Insurance, one of the largest insurers in the country, has just booked a $50 million abnormal expense due to the GST? Is the government also aware of comments by the chief executive of HIH, Mr Williams, who stated:We're saying that's a cost that we've got to bear and it's unfair that our shareholders should have to wear it. We're hoping that at the end of the day the Government will do what they did in New Zealand and that is introduce a transitional process that allows it to be recouped.Will the government be taking Mr Williams's advice and introducing a transitional process, as they did in New Zealand? If not, will it be appropriate for HIH and other insurers to recover the cost of the Howard-Lees GST through higher insurance premiums on such items as home insurance and car insurance?7919Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Of course the insurance sector of the economy, along with other sectors of the economy, we believe, will ultimately benefit from the introduction of the GST. There are transitional issues which have been raised and there has been a widespread debate on that, but the fact of the matter is that in quite a number of areas we would expect insurance premiums to fall. For example, car prices will fall and therefore the repair of cars will also be cheaper.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You've misled the public on this for months.WW4Senator KEMP—We are seeing quite a number of areas where Labor has wholesale sales tax on a range of goods of 32 per cent, and in many of those areas the prices of those goods will fall.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Premiums are up.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are people interjecting who know they should not be.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. Prices will fall in relation to a range of goods, such as videos and TVs.Senator Sherry interjecting—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about insurance?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy and Senator Sherry, come to order.WW4Senator KEMP—Household insurance involves the cover of those sorts of products, and of course the prices of those products have fallen. We think it is just not correct to assume that insurance premiums in every area will have to rise. I am arguing that, because of the cuts in Labor's wholesale sales taxes, a range of goods will in fact fall in price.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Why is the ACCC letting them put premiums up? What about the ACCC?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy, I ask you to cease interjecting and to take note of the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. So, as I said, I do not think the statement by Senator Crowley, in making broad assumptions about what will happen in insurance, is correct at all. Any claims that companies make will have to be justified to the tax office; they will have to be made according to law. We believe—and the government is on record as saying this—that the taxation system we are bringing in will be of great benefit to the Australian economy, of great benefit to business and of great benefit to individuals. I am sorry that Labor constantly opposes this. It seems to constantly oppose the major tax reforms that this government is bringing in.7920Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I would like to remind the minister that what I said had nothing to do with the Labor Party and everything to do with what the health insurance industry spokesperson was saying. So, before you race off on another tangent, Minister, could you have another shot given, as you have just said, that the ANTS documents predict cost savings to the insurance industry of $40 million and to the finance investment and insurance industry of $710 million? How is it that the HIH have had to provide for a $50 million abnormal expense due to the GST? Who is correct on this issue, Minister—the government or the insurers?7920Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I have not seen how that figure is calculated by the health insurance people and I think probably your question should, in the first place, be directed to them. The government's package, let me say, has been through a very rigorous process—an election, a massive Senate inquiry and a major Senate debate. The fact of the matter is that we believe that this tax reform is of great benefit to the Australian economy, of great benefit to business and of great benefit to individuals. If you like, Senator, I will—out of courtesy to you—have a closer look at what this particular insurance body are saying. But anyone who makes claims has to make those claims according to law and they have to be justified to the tax office.79207920Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4NSWNP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate of what the government is doing to further assist small business? How will the government's new tax plan reduce compliance costs and help small business get on with business? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy proposals and is the government giving these any serious consideration?7920Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We are doing a great deal for small business because we understand that it is the engineroom of the economy. It is responsible for almost 50 per cent of jobs in the work force at the present time. In the decade to 1995 it was responsible for creating 1.1 million jobs, which is about 90 per cent of all the new jobs in that period. Our new tax system will actually make even better news for small business because it will dramatically reduce paperwork costs and it will very significantly simplify the whole taxation payment regime. Tax instalments will be based on actual sales in the quarter and provisional tax and the provisional tax uplift factor will be abolished, as will be a raft of other taxation arrangements and associated paperwork.Morgan Stockbroking recently gave a glowing report about the Australian economy and the benefits of the new tax system. It predicted that indirect tax reform would result in a 3.2 per cent increase in GDP. An increase of that magnitude would equate to 223,000 new jobs over four years. Those jobs of course will be overwhelmingly in the small business sector. Exporters' costs, on that scenario, would fall by some $4½ billion. The new tax system is simple for business because business will be able to claim a full credit for any GST paid on business purchases; we know that it relieves the burden on business by about $10 billion a year. The President of the New Zealand Employers Federation said recently that it only takes him about 20 minutes every two months to do his GST returns.Why would anyone in their right mind be opposed to these reforms? Once again, Mr Beazley does not seem to understand policy realities. He has not yet of course disassociated himself from the secretary of the public transport union, who said recently, `How many small businesses pay a percentage of their profits to the ALP? How many small business people stood outside polling booths in the state election campaign for the ALP? It's our party, and if they don't want to be part of it they should leave.' There is a classic opportunity for Mr Beazley, who I see Glenn Milne says is in diabolical trouble, to actually come out and show that he is standing up for workers and not simply trade unions.On the youth wages issue, he has been all over the shop. This is a critical issue for small businesses because, once again, they are the major employers of young people. But for seven years—according to Dr Blewett in his recently published and very disappointing memoirs—Mr Beazley championed a policy that he knew was not in the best interests of small business. In fact, according to Dr Blewett, Mr Beazley asked cabinet whether the ACTU realised—and I will have to paraphrase to sanitise this—how on the nose they were with the public on youth wages.So how can you possibly aspire to the leadership of the nation if you remain the captive of the union movement to the extent that you say nothing on an issue when you know your policy position is wrong and when it is costing you out there in the wider electorate? All I can suggest, if the Labor Party wants to have one last chance, is that, when Senator Ray gets over there on that ultimate fact-finding mission and when he gets a bit sick of going to Carnegie Hall, the Met, the Frick and all those other wonderful places, he ought to look at how small business has transformed the economy in the United States and how it has led to significant productivity increases.Senator Robert Ray interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I know that you will probably prefer to be running around Central Park but just go a bit further and have a good look at how that economy works and see if you can apply any of the lessons back home here. It will be an absolute revelation.79217921Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of concerns expressed by the Commonwealth Bank that all banks face `mind bogglingly' complex compliance issues as a result of the draft GST regulations for financial services? Is the minister also aware that the Commonwealth Bank has claimed that implementing the GST will cost the bank $35 million over two years and increase business costs by an extra $70 million to $100 million? Given that the CBA has said, `And we will be looking to recover that in some way', does this mean that banks will be free to ramp up bank fees and charges in order to pay for the costs of the Howard-Lees GST?7921Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I make a couple of points by way of introduction, Senator. This government has cut the cost of banking. This government's policies have ensured that people can now borrow at rates vastly below the rates which were available during the Labor years. For you to stand up in question time representing an opposition which in government saw home loan rates rising towards 17 per cent and heading north—when people can now get home loan rates in the order 6.5 per cent—and to suggest that this government is not worried about providing low cost finance to people is completely absurd. The Labor Party record is absolutely dreadful.What I think Senator Mackay was referring to—not draft regulations, Senator—is that we have released for consultation, with the banking sector, a document called The application of a goods and services tax to financial services. This has been provided to the banking sector for their consultation and feedback, so we are in the process now of getting that feedback from the banking sector. I would think that at this stage of the debate you will have people out there trying to make political points and to push the government in one direction or another. But there are two underlying points. One is that this government is providing the structure so that there are cheaper financial services to the Australian community than we have had in memory. This is in particular contrast to what happened under the terms of the Labor government. The second point—and I suspect that this report is what Senator Mackay was referring to—is that this document is now out to banks and other bodies in the financial services to get their feedback on the proposals the government has for the implementation of the GST.9L6MACKAYSenator Mackay—Answer the question.WW4Senator KEMP—That is the answer to your question, Senator.7922Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, the question related to a quote from the Commonwealth Bank, which said, `And we will be looking to recover that in some way.' The Commonwealth Bank said that in relation to GST compliance. Given that the Howard government has claimed that the GST will save the banking and services sector a total of—I will remind you—$1.6 billion, how could the Commonwealth Bank have got it so wrong? Does this mean that the government will ensure that the ACCC will take action against any bank that jacks up fees and charges in order to pay for the cost of implementing and maintaining the GST?7922Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make it absolutely clear that we believe there are substantial savings to the banking sector as a result of our goods and services tax. There may be people like the CBA that have a different view, and they are entitled to put that view. It is very clear from the analysis we have done that this government is not only providing lower cost financial services to people through its reforms but that, with the removal of certain taxes like the FID, the wholesale sales tax and others, there will be very substantial savings. Anyone who attempts to claim expenses which cannot be justified may find it worth while to have a chat with the ACCC, because this government is determined to deliver the cost savings of this tax system to the Australian public. (Time expired)79227922Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. I draw the minister's attention to the recently formulated oil code and I ask, first: is the minister aware of media reports that major oil companies were refusing to supply petrol stations if fuel was sold at a lower than recommended price, according to information gathered by a New South Wales government hotline? Is the minister also aware that in New South Wales callers to the petrol hotline claimed service station managers who lowered prices were subjected to threats and intimidation, and that they told of across-the-board increases on public holidays and pension days in certain areas and of bowser prices differing from the posted prices on the signboard? Does this mean that the oil code is not working?7922Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—For the benefit of Senator Woodley, the oil code is a matter of some discussion between the parties and something we hope to finalise in the near future so that we can get agreement on the oil code in order that we can repeal the sites act and the franchise act. I am not sure what on earth Senator Woodley is talking about. The oil code is a government proposal which would be put into the Trade Practices Act and have the effect of being the mechanism by which the Trade Practices Act would protect small service station owners and ensure fair trade practices in the absence of the sites act and the franchise act. It is part of the government's proposals for reform of the petrol industry—an industry that the Industry Commission and the ACCC have agreed desperately needs reform. So I am not sure where Senator Woodley is coming from.What I do know is that the New South Wales Labor government's responsible minister has been utterly irresponsible in his attempts to play politics with the fact that the price of crude oil has doubled in the last six months, with consequences, naturally, for the prices of retail petrol. The New South Wales government minister has been roundly criticised by the service station industry itself for his cheap politicking on this issue, which has resulted in what I gather is now called `fuel rage' or something of that kind, because of the hysteria that he has created and the animosity he has single-handedly created towards the workers, the employees, at service stations. I would certainly take this opportunity to call on the New South Wales government, and in particular its fair trading minister, to behave much more responsibly on this very difficult issue in view of the fact that petrol station prices have obviously gone up because you cannot have a situation where crude oil prices double in six months and not have some consequences on petrol prices.7923Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Minister, I was aware of the whole debate, and particularly of the fact that the oil code and the legislation are yet to be debated in this place. I am saying to you that it seems that already there is a threat to the oil code because of the actions of major oil companies. Are you aware of a serious dispute, for instance, between the Motor Traders Association of Australia member Mr John Hinspeter and Caltex and the claim that this suggests that Caltex itself has no intention of observing the oil code? Do you believe the oil code will work to protect consumers and small petrol retailers?7923Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I am very confident that, if we can get agreement in relation to the oil code, it will work because it will be law. It will be part of the Trade Practices Act. It will be legally binding and will produce a much more sensible outcome and a much better petrol industry that will benefit consumers, the industry and service station proprietors. I think we all have to wake up to the difficulties in this industry. We do have the major oil companies suffering very low profitability and having difficulties with the refining industry. We have imports coming in from Singapore. We have a number of companies retailing petrol that are not subject to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act or the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act. Inquiry after inquiry has agreed that there has to be reform of this industry and we look to the Senate to support that reform.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous79237923The PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—Order! I present a statement relating to a proposal to broadcast Senate proceedings on the Internet. The Manager of Government Business has indicated that he will give notice of a motion to authorise this proposal. I ask that honourable senators examine this statement before a motion is dealt with in the Senate.Miscellaneous7923792315:02:007923Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have further information to add to the answer that I gave to a question from Senator Ludwig on 26 August 1999, in relation to legal fees. The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, and I seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Not all accounts have been presented to the Commonwealth for legal services provided in relation to this matter. Accordingly, it is not possible at this time to answer the honourable senator's question.792315:03:007923Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) to a question without notice asked today, relating to trade and the economy.Let me begin by quoting from a speech on 30 May 1995. This was a speech in the House of Representatives. These words were said:Yesterday the trade deficit was $2.25 billion. For the eight or ninth month in a row it was in excess of $2 billion. Australians are becoming desensitised to these outrageous figures. We are slipping further and further into the mireand our chance is just thrown away. In that same speech, the speaker concluded:It is disgusting and it is outrageous that the people who are managing this company—Australia—can say that $2.25 billion in trade deficit is a good figure.The speaker was actually referring to the current account deficit at the time, and the speaker is now the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile. It was a speech he made over four years ago. He was complaining of a monthly current account deficit of $2.25 billion then, or, on a quarterly figure, $7.75 billion. But today's quarterly current account deficit figure is $9 billion. That is $1¼ billion worse, and we have not heard from the minister, Mark Vaile, that this is disgusting and outrageous. For a government that promised to reduce the current account deficit, this surely is a disgusting and outrageous outcome.One only has to look at the press release published by Mark Vaile to see why this government is trying to hide the facts from the Australian community. On 19 August, Mark Vaile published Exports of primary and manufactured products Australia 1998, an annual publication of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He headed the accompanying press release `Manufactured exports grow in importance', as if manufacturing exports in Australia are doing better. On page 4 of this document, it reads:Australia's exports of Manufactures grew 11 per cent per annum over the last decade, but fell 2 per cent to $24 billion in 1998.What he is saying is that, during the period of the Labor government, exports of manufactured goods grew. So, if you take the 10-year span, the graph is still up. But if you look at the last two years, the graph goes down under this government. He is boasting about Labor's achievement, hiding his failure and the failure of this government on trade. Today's current account figures—an abysmal performance at $9 billion in deficit—demonstrate once again how this government has lost the plot in dealing with our external account.Let me go one step further: let us look at what this government did when it was in opposition in running the debt truck around Australia and complaining about the level of foreign debt. In 1996 the level of foreign debt was $192 billion. Now, it is $242 billion—an increase of $50 billion or 26 per cent, or per capita, per Australian, a debt of $12,500. These are figures you do not hear from the Treasurer. It is inconvenient for him to talk about them. But it was this government, then in opposition, that complained about a foreign debt at levels much lower than is currently the case.Let us look at the balance of trade in goods and services. In 1996 we had a surplus of $1.57 billion. In 1998-99 we have a deficit of $14.9 billion—a turnaround for the worse of $16 billion. This government has failed the Australian community. It has dishonoured its election pledges and it is driving this country into debt, sucking in imports, failing to produce offsetting exports and driving our current account deficit further and further into the red ink. This government stands condemned against its own performance indicators; it has failed to live up to what it promised. This country is facing a current account deficit crisis. This country is facing a foreign debt crisis. This country is facing a merchandise trade export crisis. (Time expired)15:08:007924Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—What a lot of humbug we have heard from Senator Cook. We had a Labor government in power for 13 years. When the Asian economy was in boom and soaring ahead—when the tigers were roaring in Asia—we had high inflation, we had high unemployment, we had high interest rates, we had a high increase in overseas debt, and we had the recession we had to have.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—That was only three years ago.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—It was only three years ago. At a time when the tigers of Asia have been silenced in an economic downturn, we have unemployment going down, inflation at an all time low, and interest rates at an all time low. And they have the hide to stand up here and raise this issue! At least they have got off the other issue they were harping about last week and have got back to the main game. I think the message is getting across to them that they have been dealt out of the main game, and so today is a bit of an attempt to get back into the picture.The ALP are trying to justify their poor economic credentials. They are trying to attack the government's economic performance and trying to hide the dismal mess they left us to clean up. They left us, after 13 years, with unemployment at 11.2 per cent, and with a $10 billion deficit that was hidden by the Leader of the Opposition. It came out only after the election that they had hidden Beazley's black hole that he left us. The opposition spent totally beyond our means and left us with a decrepit, ramshackle wholesale sales tax system which could not provide for Australia's needs. That is what they left us. They were not game enough to bite the bullet, despite the fact they had a go at it in the 1980s. They decided that it was too hard and that they would just leave it.Company confidence was at an all-time low, brought on by the Keating inspired recession that we had to have, which I referred to earlier. As Senator Kemp said today, interest rates were running at an all-time high of 17 per cent, making it almost impossible for average Australians to borrow for homes or for business start-ups. We saw small businesses hitting the wall because they could not afford to pay the interest on their loans.We have turned the economy around in three short years. We have done something about the mess that was Labor's legacy to us and to Australians. We have taken strong action to reduce Labor's debt, to bring interest rates down, to remove the threat of inflation from wages and prices and to bring unemployment down. We now have a strong economy which has enjoyed eight consecutive quarters of economic growth. It is an economy which, unlike that under Labor, is enjoying high business confidence, with profits rising by 10.3 per cent. More than 40 per cent of Australians own shares, many for the first time. Unemployment is at its lowest in a decade at 7.2 per cent. There is no inflation in the economy and a successful debt reduction program has seen the budget in surplus, unlike Labor, which, when it was in government, continued to spend the money of those kids up in the gallery—the adults of the future—by borrowing against the next generation.If you are going to talk about the current account deficit, let us get it in perspective. The appropriate measure of the current account deficit, for the purposes of comparison, is the share of GDP. Some commentators know that, in dollar terms, the June quarter 1999 current account deficit of $9.4 billion exceeds the previous highest quarterly figure on record of $8.3 billion in March 1999. In level terms, the next highest on record was in the March quarter 1995, when it reached $7.7 billion. We might just note that in 1995 Labor was in government.However, such comparisons of nominal figures are misleading in a growing economy. In nominal terms, GDP is at a record level. In nominal terms, wages are at record levels. In nominal terms, household disposable incomes are at record levels. In nominal terms, household consumption is at a record level. In nominal terms, private sector wealth is at a record level. That is the good-news story. All you can focus on is one aspect of the economy. When you have a downturn in the economies which purchase from Australia and to which we export, then of course we are going to see problems with exports. But I tell you what! I would rather have faced the economic downturn in Asia under a Liberal government than under a Labor government, with its record of mismanaging the economy.15:13:007925Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6WAALP00—The balance of payments figures released today by the ABS show a damning picture of Australia's current account and international investment picture. All the signs are pointing in the wrong direction; they point south. The figures point out major economic problems on the horizon, and a brief recital of the figures demonstrates the problem. The trend balance on the current account has blown out from $8.3 billion for the March quarter to $9 billion. Seasonally adjusted, the current account has blown out from $8.2 billion to $9.3 billion. Seasonally adjusted, the current account deficit for the June quarter was up a huge 13 per cent. Incredibly, the net international investment position deteriorated further to a liability of $353 billion. From March 1996 to June 1999 the net international investment position has blown out from $274 billion to $353 billion, or an increase of 29 per cent in the life of this government alone. A large portion of this additional liability comes from debt. Since the coalition came to power, this liability has been increasing at an annual rate, compounded, of 10 per cent per annum.The government likes to claim credit for low and deteriorating levels of unemployment, low and steady inflation figures, higher levels of investment and sustained levels of GDP growth. It likes to claim credit for fireproofing the economy from the downturn in Asia. But if this credit is allocated to the current government, it cannot escape the statistics that suggest our growth and our rise in living standards are both illusory and temporary. This is because the growth is funded by borrowing, by an increase in overseas debt and by a binge in consumption. Simply put: Australians—both personal in the household sector and business in the corporate sector—are engaged in a consumption binge.Debt is being raised to maintain current living standards. You see it in the high levels of up-market cars being imported, the higher levels of more expensive consumer durables being imported, the boom in property prices in better suburbs of mainland Australia, the huge rise in personal debt and the huge rise in credit availability and use all around Australia. The problem of a debt financed consumption binge lays squarely at the doors of the current government. This government is remiss in three fundamental areas: it has no savings policy to fund our consumption binge; it has no industry policy to overcome our growing current account deficit on goods; and, finally, it has no trade policy to gain access to new markets or to build upon areas of comparative advantage or strength in the Australian economy.We can already see the growing signs of serious downturn in our own decline. Currency values are dropping. In recent months the Australian dollar has gone from 67 cents down to around 63 cents. The international marketplace is saying we are worth less—over the last three or four months requiring eight per cent more Australian dollars to service existing debt levels. The spread between Australian bonds and US bonds has gone out to over 50 points as at last Friday. This means that the price of borrowing or interest rates will have to increase. Sooner, not later, our interest rates will move to fund our consumption habits and to fund our increasing borrowing and increasing debt.These problems are capable of being fixed by being serious about having a savings policy in this country. A clear start would be again to look at increasing the quantum of compulsory superannuation from nine per cent to 15 per cent. This is simply done by saving some of the budget surplus as opposed to wasting it on more debt financed consumption, as is the intention of the current government from 1 July next year. Already household saving has dropped from around 18 per cent 20 years ago to 12 per cent 10 years ago, so that now it just approaches zero, just like the US. Just as Japanese bond holders can sell, not buy, US bonds, they are doing that already with Australian issued bonds. They can sell them now and buy them for a lower price for a higher yield later. Savings levels in Australia need to increase dramatically. Next year there will be significant tax cuts. The general rate will drop to 30 per cent from higher levels. A portion of those tax cuts should be directed into national savings. (Time expired)15:18:007926Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—The current account deficit phenomenon goes back a long time. In fact, I can remember it being a very contentious issue in my university economics days. The issue we are looking at today was raised by Senator Cook. Senator Cook really failed to differentiate between those matters that the Australian government can control and external events.I think it is interesting that the Labor Party has suddenly acknowledged debt. When the Labor Party was in government from June 1983 to 1996, net foreign debt increased by 662 per cent from $25.2 billion to $191.9 billion. As a share of GDP—and this is the interesting and most relevant comparison—net foreign debt almost tripled from 14 per cent of GDP to 38 per cent. But if we look at today's statistics, we see that the June quarter current account deficit is 6.2 per cent of GDP. This figure is actually below many of the earlier peaks. The figure recorded for the March quarter of 1990 was 6.6 per cent of GDP—surprise, surprise, the ALP was in government—and 6.5 per cent of GDP was recorded in the March quarters of 1995 and 1986.If we are looking at possible opposition criticism of the government, where is the substance? The substance, I maintain, is absolutely lacking. If we look at those issues that the Australian government has been able to control—and has controlled—we find that Australia has one of the lowest ratios of government debts to GDP of any country in the OECD.Coming back to my earlier point, the very strong domestic demand of the Australian economy has fuelled a big rise in imports. Judging from the tenor of Senator Cook's remarks, he seems to be making a desperate plea to perhaps reintroduce massive tariffs to limit some of these imports or, alternatively, to reintroduce massive subsidies to exports, which would be contrary to GATT, Cairns and Uruguay type arrangements.Where is the Labor Party coming from in terms of the message that it is attempting to send? Its messages are mixed, confused and out of date and not in keeping with what is happening globally. What Senator Cook fails to recognise is the resilience of the Australian economy, an economy which has managed to withstand the great crisis that has occurred in most countries to the north. Many of Australia's traditional markets actually got caught in that downturn. Labor senators were critical of Australia not opening up new markets. Perhaps the Labor Party has not been reading the overseas trade statistics in the last few years where we find that entirely new markets emerged and new products have come onto the export scene. New export markets are indeed a surprisingly good story.What Senator Cook and Senator Bishop failed to say about interest rates is that interest rates are generally determined by what happens in the global economy. Australia is very much part of the global scene nowadays. Decisions by Dr Alan Greenspan in the United States influence interest rates in Australia. There will be an outflow of money from Australia, in this global economy, to those countries—particularly to the United States, when it offers higher interest rates. It is not surprising that, despite the resilience and the strength of the Australian economy, there will always be some money movements—called hot money—from one economy to another in response to interest rate movements. And that is exactly what we are experiencing at the present time. The surprising feature about interest rates in Australia is that they have not moved upwards more than they have. It is true that there has been a slight shift in certain fixed term rates.If we look at Mr Mark Paterson's survey of investor confidence, he says that it is nothing short of extraordinary, with the level of business confidence rising by 7.1 per cent. (Time expired)15:23:007927Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—It is a bit surprising to me that a number of Liberals have got up and, with straight faces, told us in no uncertain terms that the report issued today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the balance of payments positions is not anything to be worried about. You would think, from listening to Senator Watson, that people listening to our broadcasts out in the suburbs and in rural and regional Australia—Senator Patterson interjecting—84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—Maybe we are not broadcasting. Senator Patterson will have to listen to me herself. You would think that we have nothing to worry about and that all is well and fine in this great land that we live in. If you move around this country like I do, particularly in my own state of New South Wales, you would know that there is not the sense of optimism and good tidings that you would think there is from hearing the speeches today from the coalition senators. I think people need to be reminded that the ABS report said that our trade is deteriorating, our current account deficit has blown out to a record level of more than six per cent of GDP, the deficit has increased by $1 billion in the June quarter, and we have had a 13 per cent blow-out in the total current account deficit for the quarter to a record $9.36 billion, seasonally adjusted.I can only talk on behalf of New South Wales, but once again those geniuses in the Liberal Party that run the New South Wales machine are running around the state with that debt truck. Do you remember the debt truck? It said, `We will reduce the debt once we get in.' But, according to these figures that have been published today, all we see is that we are going further and further into debt and we have no solutions to it.One of the things that has not been commented on by the coalition is this: one of the worrying indicators is the decline in Australia's exports of elaborately transformed manufactures. These are the highly skilled manufacturing industries that were going up under the Labor government. Where are they now? They are declining, because this government will not invest in our future. It is all right for Senator Patterson to look up into the gallery and say to all the young people up there, `We are looking after your future.' You are not looking after their future at all. All you are doing is letting our economy and these manufactures slip further and further into the low-skilled, low wage industries. Under the Labor government, these elaborately transformed manufactures were increasing. They are declining, and I think that is one of the serious things to come out of this report, which has not been commented on by any of the speakers on the coalition side today.When we think about these figures that have been released, we on our side see that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The coalition has not been fair dinkum in presenting to the Australian people any solutions that will overcome this problem. All they have done is to give us a bash-up about 13 years in government. We did a lot of things to be proud of in 13 years in government, and if we get an opportunity we will do more of them.I went to a conference in Wagga on the weekend with the National Party member for the Riverina, Kay Hull, and we heard some frightening statistics from people who live in rural and regional Australia. They have income levels that are nearly a third less than those of their metropolitan based fellow Australians. They pay more for things like fruit, vegetables, fuel, and for a lot of other things associated with living out in regional and rural Australia. They are not convinced that you are doing the right thing. They are convinced that you are letting their lifestyles and their standards of living decline. You have not come up with any solutions whatsoever, and I think you need to explain to people what you are going to do about the future.15:28:007928Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—Australia has one of the strongest economies in the developed world. It has high growth, high productivity, high jobs growth, low inflation, low interest rates, high GDP, record wages, high disposable income, household consumption at record levels, and private sector wealth at record levels. It is one of the strongest economies in the developed world, and this is Australia's greatest national achievement over the last decade. It is in fact Australia's great foundation stone for the future.Not long ago, everyone said that Australia was finished and that the Asian economic tigers would savage Australia. They did not; this country prevailed. Because of the economic management of the Howard government, Australia has done much, much better than anyone expected.Senator Cook interjecting—84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Half a dozen years ago, even Senator Cook would not have thought that Australia would be doing as well as it is today. This is perhaps Australia's strongest economic performance since man landed on the moon. While the government welcomes the opposition's concern, it is disconcerting that, with the opposition's record, they are seeking to rubbish Australia's great national achievement. Labor are claiming that we are living off a binge. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. This government has taken some very tough decisions. They were not always easy, but it has made them and they were the right decisions. It has taken the tough decisions today so that all Australians—including the young people who were in the gallery before—can live a little better tomorrow.This government is not a credit card government. It has a very proud record on the economy and, try as the opposition may, they really can do very little to dent it. Senator Patterson and Senator Watson put our case well and gave the background, as did Senator Kemp. Today's current account figure for the June quarter, which showed a deficit of about $9 billion, reflects the combined effect of a continued weakness in many of our export markets and at the same time the very great strength of our domestic economy. As Senator Watson pointed out, the June quarter result of about six per cent of GDP is actually below earlier peaks—the 6.6 per cent of GDP recorded under the Hawke government in the March quarter of 1990 and 6.5 per cent in the March quarters of 1995 and 1986. In the current financial year, the current account deficit is 5½ per cent, which is consistent with the budget forecast. As usual, quarterly outcomes have fluctuated around the year average estimate.While the volume of exports has held up, the fall in export prices in the June quarter is a reminder of the difficult trading conditions for our exporters, particularly in East Asian markets, despite recent signs of a turnaround in some areas. The June quarter outcome has also been affected by the large falls in contract prices for bulk commodities which came into effect on 1 July 1999 largely in response to the slow-down in East Asia and particularly in response to the recession in Japan.This government has a very proud record on the economy. Over the last few years this government's achievement has been second to none. In my lifetime there have been only a couple of years in the 1960s when the economy has been stronger. Interest rates now are what they were when I was born. We make no apologies for the superb performance of this government. The opposition harps on the current account deficit but, while it is perhaps troubling in some quarters, it will change, it will fluctuate. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices79297929Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the comments of Professor Nadine Strossen, President of the American Civil Liberties Union, that the Government's internet censorship laws are `draconian and repressive', and (ii) the specific concerns of Professor Strossen that: (a) the child protection argument advanced by the Government to support the legislation has previously been rejected by the United States Supreme Court, and (b) the internet cannot be censored for children without censorship for everybody;(b) calls on the Government to repeal the internet censorship legislation; and(c) recognises that: (i) the Government's internet censorship legislation is forcing Australian business overseas, and (ii) parents should exercise their responsibility to determine what their children should view.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that the More Intensive and Flexible Services pilot program for people with disabilities is one of the Commonwealth's most successful programs, providing support and assistance to people with chronic, unstable or high support needs and to people with multiple disabilities, (ii) that, to date, the program has enabled up to 80 per cent of those on the program to access vocationally-oriented courses, (iii) that some 200 new entrants to the program have been referred for initial assessments in recent weeks, and (iv) the Government has announced that the program will finish in December 1999, even though no performance review has been undertaken with regards to the program; and (b) calls on the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman): (i) to conduct, as a matter of urgency, an assessment review of the program, and (ii) to provide for the necessary funds in the forthcoming budget to allow the continuance of the program until such a review is conducted and/or an alternative program is negotiated.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 2), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 163 and made under the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 , be disallowed.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate authorises the publication by electronic means, including by the internet, in sound and visual images, of proceedings of the Senate and its committees, subject to the rules applying to radio and television broadcasting of Senate and committee proceedings.Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Tierney, to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the scrutiny of annual reports be extended to 2 September 1999.Business79307930Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 1 September 1999 be interrupted at approximately 12.20 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Greig to make his first speech without any question before the chair.Committees79307930793015:34:007930Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I move:That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 31 August 1999, from 3.30 pm till 5 pm, to allow officers of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to provide a briefing on two matters relating to the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio.The purpose of the meeting is to allow officers of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to provide a briefing on two matters relating to the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio, which is allocated to the committee under standing order 25(2)(b). The briefing is being conducted at the request of Senator George Campbell and has been agreed to by the government.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices79307930Items of business were postponed as follows: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 31 August 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for 31 August 1999, relating to the disallowance of Schedule 1 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 8), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 132, postponed till 1 September 1999.General business notice of motion No. 271 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to student poverty, postponed till 31 August 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for 31 August 1999, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till 1 September 1999.Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) for 31 August 1999, relating to the reference of matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, postponed till 21 September 1999.General business notice of motion No. 136 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on superannuation and financial services, postponed till 31 August 1999. Miscellaneous793179317931Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Bolkus)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:(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 1 September 1999, the answers to all outstanding questions on notice.Committees79317931793115:38:007931Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Ferris, I present the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector entitled Fair market or market failure? A review of Australia's retailing sector , together with submissions, Hansard record and minutes of proceedings, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave not granted.7931793115:38:007931Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Parer, I present report No. 2 of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on 1997-98 annual reports.Ordered that the report be printed.7931793115:38:007931Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Brownhill, I present report No. 2 of 1999 of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on the scrutiny of annual reports.Ordered that the report be printed.7931793115:39:007931Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present report No. 24 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled A seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making , together with minutes of proceedings, and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.On some occasions I would seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard but on this occasion, as the report deals with an important meeting on treaty making, I will speak to it. The report contains an overview of the main issues discussed at a seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making conducted in June this year by the treaties committee in association with the Australasian Study of Parliament Group. The report also sets out the ideas for future action that were raised during the seminar and includes a full record of the seminar proceedings.The work of the treaties committee over the last few years has revealed a sense of unease in parts of the Australian community about the impact of international law on Australian law and policy. Some people believe that treaty obligations represent a loss of national sovereignty, and some doubt the capacity of parliaments to control the process. The only way for these concerns to be resolved is for more information to be made publicly available and for our elected representatives to ensure that any international obligations entered into truly reflect our national interest.The fundamental purpose of our seminar was to explore the opportunities that exist for parliaments around the country to become more aware of, and involved in, the process of treaty making. It is clear that governments in the federal system have had much to say about treaties over the years. Even though Australia acts internationally as one body, it is, in fact, a federation. That has been reflected in the way treaties have been dealt with over the years—at a government level, not at a parliamentary level. This conference addressed the issue of how parliaments in a federal system are able to operate well enough to make the treaty process a good one for the population as a whole.It was pleasing to see the level of interest displayed in these issues by the seminar participants. This interest led to the development of a number of sensible proposals for greater parliamentary involvement in treaty making—proposals that would see more information about treaty actions provided to state parliaments, more effective community consultation on treaty making, and better cooperation between the Commonwealth and state parliaments. The first proposal, submitted by representatives from the Western Australian parliament, called for treaty information—including national interest analyses—to be routinely presented to all state and territory parliaments, and for all state and territory parliaments to establish standing committees dedicated to the task of reviewing treaty information and liaison with the treaties committee in the Commonwealth parliament.The second proposal, which is seen as complementary and which was submitted by members of the treaties committee, is that all Australian parliaments contribute to the establishment of an interparliamentary working group on treaties. This proposal builds on earlier recommendations from the Federal-State Relations Committee of the Victorian parliament. We envisage that the working group would comprise members from all of the parliamentary committees represented at the seminar and any other committees that may, over time, become interested in treaty matters and that it would act as a forum for promoting wider public awareness of proposed treaty actions and better parliamentary scrutiny of treaty making.In our view, both of these proposals warrant serious consideration. They are not grandiose and would cost little to implement. To borrow words used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his address to the seminar, the reason behind the government's reformed treaty making process is to `ensure that the parliament and the general community are the ultimate arbiters of whether international treaties are in Australia's national interest'. This is also the reason behind the proposals emerging from our seminar. It is important to stress, however, that the measures described in these proposals will not happen unless seminar participants, and others with an interest in the process, make them happen. Those of us who believe it important for local communities, and their elected representatives, to understand and influence the treaty making process must take the initiative. I urge the presiding officers in each state and territory parliament, and interested members in each of those parliaments, to consider these proposals and take action to make them happen.I would like to thank the special guest speakers at our seminar: the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Alexander Downer; Associate Professor Donald Rothwell; Professor Richard Herr; Professor Gillian Triggs; Bill Campbell from the Attorney-General's Department; our parliamentary colleague from New Zealand the Hon. Derek Quigley MP; and all of our state and territory parliamentary colleagues. Thanks are also due to all of the other seminar participants who helped make the event a success. Thanks are due to the secretariat of the committee. I thank each and every one of them for the success of the seminar.The treaties committee has been a most successful committee. It arose out of a report, amongst other things, by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee and from ideas by the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams. The committee has considered the idea of treaty making around the world at a time when parts of the world are coming closer and closer together, and has brought treaties closer to the people.15:45:007932Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I am very pleased to speak briefly on the tabling of report No. 24 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, A seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making . It must be acknowledged that there is a sense of unease in certain parts of the Australian community about the international impact and effect of treaties on Australian law and policy. One only has to mention the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the blue sky decision, the human rights ramifications of the ICCPR and the Teoh decision, giving rise to a legitimate expectation in administrative law that decision makers will have regard to treaty obligations in reaching a decision—to mention a few where Australia's right to control our own destiny might be thought to be called into question: an issue of sovereignty.These anxieties are to a very great extent allayed by the operation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which was established in 1996 and which is, to my mind, one of the standout successes of the Howard government. Senior coalition members—including Assistant Treasurer Senator Rod Kemp; the Hon. Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs; and the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams—were committed to democratising the treaty process and providing widely available public information in the lead-up to the implementation of treaties.At the heart of this commitment was the recognition that in a global world Australia is required to respond internationally to challenges thrown up by such issues as trade, the environment, human rights and even international crime. Treaties are the accepted ways for countries to deal with each other. The case therefore for parliamentary oversight in scrutinising intended treaties had become overwhelming. So too had the need to provide for the tabling in parliament of all bilateral and multilateral treaties before binding action is taken. The tabling of treaties 15 days before the government takes binding action has seen a significant enhancement of public scrutiny. These reforms will be finetuned. Included in this finetuning is the need to increase consultation with states and territories. The government's review of its 1996 reform package is imminent, and it will no doubt address this issue.Although Australia is a world leader in this field, the process can be improved. The seminar identified ways in which state and territory governments can be more effectively involved in the process. The report suggests that information about proposed treaty action should be routinely presented to all state and territory parliaments; that all state and territory parliaments should consider establishing standing committees to review treaty information and to liaise with the treaties committee in the Commonwealth parliament; and, probably most important of all, that all Australian parliaments should consider establishing an interparliamentary working group on treaties. There is much to recommend this approach as a means of widely disseminating information and ensuring that Australian treaty actions have national support and are truly in the national interest as a mechanism which reflects and accommodates our federal structure. I commend the report to the Senate as a useful milestone in the commitment to openness, transparency and consultation in treaty making.15:50:007933Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—In speaking to the report tabled today by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making , I should say that I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I just want to make a couple of points in view of Senator Coonan's considered presentation on this report.It is true that the coalition promised at the 1996 election to establish this committee, but when Senator Coonan said that this is one of the outstanding successes of the Howard government I would have to say it is a pretty low bar you have presented to yourself in seeing the establishment of a joint committee of the Australian parliament as a major success of the government in its first three years. But what I want to point out is that prior to the 1996 election Senator Kemp, in particular, and other Liberal senators in this chamber campaigned strenuously against the then government over adopting various international treaties—as though democracy was not working and parliament was being subverted. They went on at some length and said that at that stage the policy of the Liberal Party was that the parliamentary committee would have the power to carry out a function equivalent to the Senate of the United States—that is, either reject or accept the treaty itself, which was the major thrust of what was being put forward.I am thankful that Alexander Downer, as foreign affairs minister, did not fall for that; he got it changed once he got into government to say that certainly the committee could meet, take submissions and make recommendations but that the executive would hold unto itself the right to agree to treaties. I think that was the correct decision. In our parliamentary system, where the executive is part of the parliament, not separated from it, unlike the American system, it would have been a very bad mistake to allow the Senate to have held up international treaty arrangements.Senator Coonan quite rightly points out that some of the hearings have been prepared to take evidence on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. During the discussion in the chamber on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, I found it really interesting that Senator Kemp, acting on behalf of the Treasurer in this place, had to defend the fact that Treasury had completely kept to itself as a bureaucracy its discussions on and involvement in the MAI international discussions. As a result, the committee made a number of strong recommendations on the MAI, which I think were unanimous from all sides of the parliament, that Treasury should no longer have that responsibility over treaties on international investment and that that responsibility should be transferred to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet rather than be left in the hands of Treasury—very strong recommendations which I hope the government accepts for the future.At the moment the treaties committee is dealing with a treaty to further extend the arrangements for Pine Gap. We have had hearings where officials from the Department of Defence have turned up and basically said, `We want you to agree to this treaty, but we can't tell you anything about the treaty. There are secret protocols with the treaty. There are arrangements which we can't tell you as members of parliament. But trust us as the Department of Defence: we want you to approve it.' The committee is still dealing with that deliberation. In the public hearings we have had there has been some incredulity on behalf of all members of the committee, on both sides of parliament, at the way the Department of Defence would not provide information about the Pine Gap treaty and arrangements. It took an outsider, Professor Des Ball, to come along and give to the committee more information than we had from the Department of Defence in several hearings, both in public and in private.I cannot predict what the committee's final report on the Pine Gap treaty will be, but it will be rather ironic if this treaty committee starts making recommendations about more transparency on the operations of Pine Gap when a former Liberal government in the 1960s signed the treaty in utter secrecy. There was no information given to either parliament or the Australian people. At the public hearings representatives from both sides of the committee, from the Labor and Liberal parties, raised the question of whether it is about time there was a standing committee of this parliament to overview the operation of intelligence agencies and arrangements, such as they have in the US Congress. We have an extraordinary situation in Australia where members of the American Congress on appropriate committees have more information about the operation of Pine Gap than does the parliament of Australia. In 1997 a new chairman from the American Congress, newly elected to chair the appropriate committee that oversaw the operation of Pine Gap, got a conducted tour of Pine Gap and a full briefing, but no member of the Australian parliament—other than if you happen to be a minister or in the executive—could get the same.I do not think that Senator Kemp, when he was pushing this in the early 1990s, quite realised that he may be opening up things that previous Liberal governments had tried to hide. In that sense I think the committee has been useful. But let us not forget that the Liberal Party promised that the committee would have a power of veto over the operation and signing of treaties. After the election Mr Downer quite rightly convinced cabinet and the Liberal Party not to give that power in this parliament to a system whereby we do not have the same powers as the American Senate over treaties. It rests with the executive, and the executive has to take the responsibility for it.This has been a useful opportunity to speak again about the arrangements and particularly about some of the material that has come before us: material on the MAI, and you may remember the treaty on the rights of the child. There was some disgraceful material put into this parliament saying that the rights of the child treaty through the UN was `one government, world government' and so on. I think it was run as a scare campaign by extreme right wing groups in the community to scare people.I would not be supportive of giving state governments any right to hold up the operation of foreign treaty powers. You would not give six state governments and two territory governments the right to automatically hold up a foreign treaty. Imagine what the Grey government in Tasmania would have done over the signing of the treaty that led to the stopping of the damming of the Franklin. They would have used every device federally for years to enable the dam to be built before we could get agreement through such a body, because they would have gone to the lowest common denominator. That is not a power that I want to see weakened or handed over, even in an indirect way, for state governments to take petty parochial attitudes when this parliament decides on behalf of what the national interest truly is.Question resolved in the affirmative.7935793515:58:007935Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector.Leave not granted.5L6Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS—I seek leave to have my speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave not granted.15:58:007935Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the tabling of the report Fair market or market failure? A review of Australia's retailing sector tabled in the parliament today.Leave granted.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I rise as a member of this Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector. I acknowledge that Senator Ferris was also a member of the committee. The committee was made up of members of the House of Representatives and senators. It contained not only Labor and Liberal but also Democrat representation. At the outset I want to pay tribute to the work of the secretariat of the committee in organising a very strenuous range of hearings all over Australia, in preparing a report and in assisting the senators and House of Representatives members on a very complex matter. In many areas and for the first time this committee was dealing with matters that have not previously been dealt with by a committee of the parliament of Australia. On behalf of the Labor Party and my colleagues—and I am sure on behalf of all members of the committee—I pay tribute to the secretary and the members of the secretariat.I also want to acknowledge that there was a lot of interest in this report. It is not often that I have been to a meeting of a joint or Senate committee where there has been such an attendance of observers interested in what is going on. All sides of the retail sector supported very strongly and showed great interest in the work and the deliberations of the committee. We held the last meeting only a week or so ago in Canberra. We filled up committee room No. 4 with observers and interested parties. Again that indicates that this issue is very important to many people in the Australian community.As my colleague Joel Fitzgibbon, who is the member for Hunter in the lower house and our shadow minister for small business and who was a member of the committee, said in a statement released earlier today, I welcome the fact that this committee report is overwhelmingly unanimous on the major recommendations. Two individual senators made not a dissenting report but what one might call a further supplementary report to matters contained in our report.The committee dealt with the recommendation from a number of organisations, but particularly NARGA, that there should be a cap on the size of the retail grocery market in Australia. The committee dealt with that issue at great length, and in the end decided that, for various reasons, that was not a practical proposition to implement at the moment, although many of us had sympathy with the fact that the small grocery retail sector—the independents—were being gradually overtaken by the size of the market controlled by the big three—Coles Myer, Woolworths and Franklins, which between them have around 70 per cent of the market in groceries in Australia.I will not go through all the recommendations in the time I have available, but we have recommended that the powers of the Trade Practices Act itself be strengthened. The committee believes that the Trade Practices Act should be strengthened to try to find ways for the small, independent operator to have greater protection from the economic power of the big end of town—the big operators. We also believe that the resources to the ACCC should be increased so it can take action on behalf of small businesses who do not have the financial resources to take representative action against the big end of town. That is a most important provision.We also recommend the establishment of a retail industry ombudsman to make sure there is a better opportunity for small retail operators to have their case, their complaint or their concerns heard and, if appropriate, referred to the ACCC to take legal action. This will all require additional resources being made available to the ACCC, but we believe that that cost will be modest. In terms of the size of the market we are dealing with, it would be a very modest cost indeed. If this enhances the operation of small business in Australia it will be a major improvement.We also recommend the drafting of a retail industry code of conduct by the ACCC and that that become a basis of a mandatory code which will be used to outline what should be an appropriate and proper relationship between the retailers, the suppliers, the tenants, et cetera. We believe such a code made mandatory will overcome many problems and complaints, which may be of perception rather than of fact, that are out there and which were strongly believed in the evidence given to us. The drafting of a code of conduct and it becoming mandatory is absolutely essential for the good health of this sector. Although I suspect the major retailers will not like it, it is in their own interest to accept such a code. We also make comment about the need for a uniform retail tenancy code, which was recommended in the Reid report. Although the government did not take up this recommendation from the Reid report of two years ago, it should be taken up now as a matter of urgency. I strongly support that.Now I turn to the final recommendation, which is that this committee be reconstituted in three years time—not necessarily with the same individual members of the House of Representatives or the Senate—3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—We have no control over that.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—We have no control over that, Senator Murray. We may all be conscripted again against our will, or asked to serve, but it is a very important recommendation. When you have a sector of the Australian economy that is 75 per cent controlled by three major companies you do have an oligopoly situation in operation and that is a concern if you want to have a free enterprise competitive economy where everybody gets a fair shake in how they operate in the economy.We believe that the recommendations we have made should be adopted and in three years time reviewed to see what effect they are having. If there has been further concentration or further what I would call `unconscionable conduct' by the big end of town in this retail sector, then the committee will look at introducing two specific recommendations. One is that the onus of proof be reversed under the Trade Practices Act so it will be easier for a small business taking an action against the big end of town, the major retailers, to prove their case. We appreciate that that is a very significant recommendation indeed and will have many consequences for the operation of the Trade Practices Act in Australia. The retailing sector in Australia ought to be put on notice that, although we have not adopted it at this stage, if there is continuing complaint over the next three years about the oligopolistic nature of the retail sector, then there will be greater pressure on all sides of parliament for this recommendation to be adopted.Finally, we also raise the prospect in three years time of an amendment to the Trade Practices Act to include divestiture of assets as an additional remedy for contravention of various parts of the Trade Practices Act. Again, to have a standing right of divestiture available to the ACCC would be a profound and very significant change to the powers in the Trade Practices Act. We do not have that power at the moment. In America they do have it but we do not have it in Australia. It would be a very significant step. Again, if there is evidence in three years time that the provisions we have recommended have led to further concentration of ownership, which has led to things like predatory pricing, market dominance and unconscionable conduct by the major players towards small business, I think it is inevitable that all sides of the parliament will say that a fair go has to be given to the small players, and these provisions will then have to be seriously looked at. I know that the big end of town will not like this and will see it as some kind of threat. It is not a threat; it is a statement of fact that we want to see an open and competitive market, with lots of small businesses in the retail sector thriving all over Australia but particularly in our regional towns.I commend all the members of the committee for the work they have put in and I commend the recommendations to the government for adoption.16:08:007937Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6SALP10—This report of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector represents a very important step in addressing the dramatic changes that have occurred in the food retailing industry, particularly in the past decade. The three major retail chains, Coles, Woolworths and Franklins, now have 75 per cent market share of the supermarket and grocery industry, according to the ABS figures. This is one of the highest levels in the OECD. The changes in the way that we shop have had considerable financial pressure on the small business sector and on our independent and small shopkeepers in the corner store.Our inquiry into the retail sector was established in December last year with terms of reference to examine the degree of industry concentration and to observe how this compared with other countries. We have actually tried to see what possible revenue neutral action our government could take. Earlier this year, because of the level of interest in this inquiry, we adopted a wider interpretation of the terms of reference, including to examine the purchasing practices of the retailing sector and particularly those affecting primary producers. We wanted to see how industry concentration in this sector was affecting rural and regional communities. I must say that this was my primary reason for joining this committee. It is an area in which I have a great interest.In all, the committee received 332 written submissions, which represented a very wide range of individuals, small businesses, retail associations and producer groups, and, of course, a very impressive array of submissions from the industry major suppliers. We conducted hearings right around Australia, including some very interesting hearings in small towns, in Cooma, Bendigo, Dubbo, Kingaroy, Bundaberg and so on. A total of 183 people gave evidence during the committee's hearings.There are, as Senator Schacht has already said, a total of 10 recommendations, the most important of which I believe is the establishment of an independent retail industry ombudsman. This would allow many of the complaints that were raised with us during the hearings to be taken to a higher level, to a retail industry ombudsman, who can, if you like, send out to the state legislatures particular complaints relating to those jurisdictions. Most importantly, the ombudsman would be completely independent of any of the industry majors and would be required to report his activities to parliament at least twice a year. We recognise the need for this independence from the majors, and it was certainly a point made to us many times over during the inquiry. In assisting small business, the ombudsman would also be required to make use of the mandatory retail code of conduct, which we are suggesting be approved by the ACCC. This code will contain a `truth in branding' provision whereby businesses which are subsidiaries of a retail major would be required to note that association on their shopfront signs and on their stationery. We were surprised many times when we took evidence from people to find that there was a remarkable level of ignorance about the ownership of some of the apparently independent stores in Australia which are, of course, owned by the majors such as Coles Myer. This particular recommendation will address that issue.The code will also contain provisions relating to transparency in those volatile supply markets which are characterised by risk exposure and the perishable nature of many of the products that are offered for sale. It will address product labelling requirements, contractual uncertainty and also the general principle of like terms for customers to ensue a greater transparency. Again and again this issue was raised with us: why is it that a particular product that is sold to us is cheaper in the larger supermarkets? It was asked by the primary producers why products that are perishable suddenly become a glut on the market and the price drops when only a matter of days before the product was not available for sale at all.Mandatory notification of retail grocery stores bought by publicly listed companies will also be contained in the code, and the ACCC will be required to assess the impact on local businesses of such acquisitions. We heard evidence of a small country town in New South Wales where one of the majors now owns the two large retail food outlets in the town, following a takeover.The committee has recommended that the Trade Practices Act be amended to give the ACCC the power to take representative actions and to seek damages on behalf of third parties. The evidence was that individual shopkeepers did not feel strong enough and certainly were not financially equipped to take action against the larger suppliers. Some of the stories from this evidence were really quite tragic. Furthermore, we have recommended that when the ACCC assesses mergers and acquisitions it should consider the impact on heavily concentrated regional markets.Small businesses will also have greater access to the unconscionable conduct provisions of the TPA as it is recommended that the transactional limitation be increased to a level of $3 million. Future acquisitions of suppliers/wholesalers by retailers and vice versa will also be subject to mandatory notification and approval by the ACCC so that the competitive impacts of such acquisitions can be more effectively determined.Looking to the future, the committee's last recommendation is for parliament to reconstitute the committee three years from now so that we can review the progress of the other recommendations that have been made and, in particular, the progress of the code of conduct to decide if further legislative action is necessary. I am particularly keen to see the infusion of a greater degree of transparency in relation to the rent and occupancy costs of small business.The secrecy and complexity of the current arrangements ensure that landlords are in a very powerful position. The knowledge that they have and the difficulty in accessing it enables some landlords to engage in discriminatory and predatory pricing in relation to the provision of retail space. The Small Retailers Association of South Australia, for example, claimed that two major chains in that state often pay only 20 per cent of the going rate. Some of the evidence that we received in relation to this was quite heartbreaking. I think in particular of a couple of small businesspeople in country towns who had entered into what I would call quite open leases. They had paid the highest financial price.I am very pleased that this committee has recognised the imbalance that exists between landlord and tenant and has recommended the implementation of a uniform retail tenancy code. In my view, it is vital that we give small business the ability to make informed decisions more effectively when deciding on where to take their rental dollar and at what cost—as an input cost—to their businesses.In conclusion, the committee did appreciate the opportunity to listen to the many people who appeared before the inquiry and gave evidence. It was clearly a daunting experience for them. For many it was the first time that they had appeared before a committee such as this but they coped very well. I think many of them were buoyed by the level of interest, particularly in regional towns, that some of the other shopkeepers showed.This is very clearly an issue which has been bubbling along in the community, particularly in regional Australia, for a very long time. From the car parts store owner in Dubbo to the butcher in Kingaroy we received many very well argued and certainly very well prepared submissions. The whole process was an excellent opportunity for my colleagues and me to gain a very valuable insight into this critical activity, which is such an important part of the private sector.16:17:007939Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Having written a fairly lengthy set of supplementary remarks, I have only a few comments to make in respect of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector's inquiry and the report that has been tabled today. I, too, would like to begin by thanking the committee secretariat. I also thank the Hon. Bruce Baird, the Chair; the Hon. Harry Jenkins, the Deputy Chair; and members and senators for their work on the committee. The good temper of the committee was a credit to its members and to the Chair. The program of public hearings was exceptionally well organised. The secretariat produced a very well written draft report and its assistance in the negotiating process to produce the final report was sincerely appreciated by all those who participated; thanks therefore particularly to Andrea and Ross, and to my adviser, Lee Jones.A hard core of senators and members attended nearly all the hearings and the difference in perception and understanding that resulted from such exposure was notable. A couple of `seagulls' who came in now and again did not have quite the same depth of assessment that they otherwise might have got if they had had exposure to the entire program. Nevertheless, having said that, the debates that the committee had to resolve the final report were conducted in a very thorough and helpful manner.The committee unanimously made a number of recommendations that I believe will, if implemented, have a substantial, positive impact for both consumers and independent retailers. Indeed, they may well have a substantial, positive impact on the behaviour of the majors, whose market practices may improve from some of the insights that they gained through the committee process. The committee's recommendation that retail grocery store acquisitions be notified to, and approved by, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will allow the ACCC to assess the competitive impact of the proposed acquisitions on both the wider Australian market and at the local level before an acquisition can proceed.The key thing, in talking to this report, is for us all to remind ourselves that it is the government of the day which will be responsible for accepting these recommendations and for reacting to them speedily. In that regard, I think Senator the Hon. Ron Boswell and the Hon. Bruce Baird need to play a particular role in gingering up the government to react sooner rather than later. Plainly, we do not want to spend a year or more waiting for the government to consider these matters at length.I would hope that the acquisitions power that is proposed to be given to the ACCC would prevent the type of situation that was identified in country Australia—for instance, in Cooma, where a particular supermarket chain bought out its only competitor. That chain now has a monopoly in that town. Not surprisingly, the committee received evidence that prices have risen significantly in that town in the absence of that competitor. While we might think that is all very wrong, we must always expect organisations and people to be true to themselves. If they have the opportunity to make as much money as possible, they will do so. The purpose of competition practice is in fact to restrain at the earliest opportunity the natural instinct of organisations and people to profit as well as they can.While indicating my support for the recommendations of the committee I also wish to indicate where I think the committee could have gone further. I have laid out six further recommendations. I note that Senator the Hon. Ron Boswell has laid out a further one, which I might say on the record that I agree with. But I think the six that I have laid out give the committee recommendations real bite. I would hope that the government would pay attention to them in its process of paying attention to the committee's unanimous recommendations. In my view, the Trade Practices Act must be amended to give the ACCC the power to order divestiture in regional markets which are overconcentrated. Furthermore, the ACCC should be empowered to order divestiture where an ownership situation exists which has the effect of substantially inhibiting competition. I see this power as being complementary to the ACCC's existing power to prevent acquisitions which have the likely effect of substantially lessening competition. The divestiture issue is often discussed in a somewhat emotive manner, but we should recognise that it is already a core practice in worldwide competition regulation and is indeed a power which is within certain parts of our own Trade Practices Act.The committee received substantial evidence in relation to predatory pricing. Witnesses consistently complained of the difficulty in proving predatory pricing, particularly against one organisation. The Chairman of the ACCC, Professor Fels, agreed that there is a problem at present with the plaintiff being required to prove that the purpose of the retailer's actions is to damage its competitor. He suggested that there is a case for reversing the onus of proof. In my view, the relevant section, section 46, should be amended so that, in cases brought by the ACCC, once it has been established that a business with a substantial degree of market power has used that power, the onus of proof shifts to that business to prove that it did not use that power for a prohibited purpose. The committee very nearly got to that recommendation themselves but felt that they would hold off for three years.I must say that in the end, although I let it go because I did not have the numbers, I do think that decision was a mistake, because I have to ask members of the committee: what do they expect to occur during the next three years to either confirm or deny the need for strengthening section 46, given the nature of the evidence we have already received, or that will alter the evidence the committee already have? What will happen in three years time is that there will be fewer independents and more people hurt. There is nothing to suggest that the predatory pricing practices will change, that the number of claims of predatory pricing will decrease, or that it will somehow become easier to prosecute a claim. Of course, I should qualify that by saying that there is plenty to suggest that the number of claims might decrease because the number of independents will decrease over the next three years. I draw senators' attention to my supplementary report for a full explanation of my concerns and additional recommendations.I wish to leave aside the substantive issues raised by the committee—because they have been well addressed by other speakers to the report—but I would like to conclude by raising an issue of concern as to the conduct of one or more members of this committee. It is clear that the contents of parts of the draft and final reports were either provided or recounted in detail to the media in advance of the tabling of the report. Anyone who read today's newspapers would know that to be true. It was always my understanding that it is incumbent upon members of parliamentary committees not to speak to the media ever about the private deliberations of committee and not to speak to the media on the possible recommendations of the committee until the committee's report is tabled as a public document in either house of parliament. That protocol has clearly not been followed by one or more members of this committee. I hope that is not a practice which will become the norm, because it would see an end to the ability of members and senators to confidentially negotiate the contents and recommendations of reports—whether majority or not. I must say that in the past I have found the Senate's own committees to be much more diligent about this than mixed House of Representatives and Senate committees. I believe that this committee's inquiry has indeed been a very useful exercise, and I sincerely hope that it results in the government making some real changes, at the earliest date, to the regulation of the retailing sector.16:27:007941Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELLYE4QLDNP10—I would like to agree with Senator Murray regarding the leaking of the document today. I think it was not just a leak; it was a flood. It resulted in just about every recommendation being brought out. This is a report that has put the major retailers under the spotlight. The committee has scrutinised their behaviour. Whilst their behaviour at the top level is guarded by the CEOs, the committee found that practices at a lower level in the organisations were not entirely up to scratch.So the committee's focusing on the major chains has been helpful. Mr Reitzer, CEO of Davids, was reported as saying, `There has been a change of attitude among the majors already'—and that was about halfway through the inquiry. There is a problem with the independent small business sector. They are getting hit from both ways. They are losing market share and their critical mass is being eroded to the point where they have some serious problems. Those small business sector representatives asked me to get a committee of inquiry up. I took this recommendation to the government and they agreed to it.Through the inquiry the independents, through NARGA, have made a thorough and professional representation. (Extension of time granted) NARGA has pushed for the recommendation that:. . . the retail share of the major chains be capped at 80 per cent, with a mandatory reduction to 75 per cent within five years, with each major controlling no more than 25 per cent of the total retail market.The committee were presented with all the problems and we looked at a mandatory cap. We investigated it very thoroughly. The problems we came up with were that Woolworths stores would be reduced by a third and Coles stores reduced by 100. We faced many dilemmas with this. The main one was that if there was a cap it would have pressed down on and devalued the shares of the 340,000 Woolworths shareholders and, I think, more Coles shareholders. We would have been effectively depressing the prices of the shares of hundreds of thousands of small business people and share owners.Professor Fels of the ACCC gave evidence as to how it would be hard to define and police a cap. We looked at the other OECD countries as part of our reference and took evidence from the US equivalent of the ACCC and we found that in no OECD country is there a market share cap. During the review it became clear—reinforced today—that the German company Aldi were to enter the Australian market and that Franklins had around 14 per cent of the market share and were expanding.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Another sell-out, Bos.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—Your senators happen to agree with this finding, Senator Conroy, so don't sit there and be half-smart. Don't be smarmy. The unions came in here—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—They came in for you, not for us.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—No, the unions came in for the workers. If you want to defy the unions, get up and say so.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—No, it's you. You are the ones who sold out, not us.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—I find that absolutely offensive. If you want to get up and disagree with this report and take on the unions head-on, go and do it, but don't sit here and just have half-hits at us. Have a bit of guts, have a bit of courage, and stand up if you want to do that.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Courage in standing up coming from you, rollover, is pretty funny.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Senator Conroy, it would be helpful if you stopped interjecting, please.YE4Boswell, Sen RonaldSenator BOSWELL—We understand the need for there to be sufficient critical mass to support an independent sector. We were faced with a decision as to how a cap would work based on this wide range of evidence. In the end it was a very difficult decision. The committee gave great consideration to a broad range of NARGA recommendations and has come down with some strong recommendations to address the conduct complained of as we travelled around Australia. It was disturbing to hear of specific instances where the chains of major suppliers acted in predatory and unfair ways. We were presented with some very serious instances of the suffering of small business from the powerful position of the chains.Increased competition is always an objective of free economies like Australia. Specific instances of undercutting a local competitor dollars below the price would not be sustainable on a statewide basis. That is the sort behaviour that we saw. In one town the majors were targeting they would, say, undercut a particular store but their statewide advertising was well and truly above that particular town. So it could be said that there was a form of predatory pricing there.The inquiry found many areas in the retailing area that need to be addressed. Firstly, the ACCC should be able to bring representative actions on behalf of individual small business people with the award of damages. Presently uncompetitive conduct can be punished by a huge fine but without any compensation for the small business victim. The change to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act will allow the ACCC to take on representative actions. I think that is a very strong recommendation. So when there is obvious targeting of a particular store, as was the case in evidence given to the committee, that can be referred to the ACCC.Small business do not have the long pockets to take on actions against Woolworths and Coles. Therefore, it has been very difficult to actually take some of these actions of predatory pricing or unconscionable conduct to court. But now the ACCC will be able to take action on behalf of the small business victims. Under our proposal the ACCC will fund and run the action with the possibility of damages being awarded to small business people. Similarly, we recommended that the limit for the other remedy of unconscionable conduct rise from a $1 million to a $3 million transaction level. Previously it was $1 million. That, I believe, was too small an amount.The ACCC must also be advised of any acquisitions of an independent store and new store development, with the ACCC to consult with local authorities on the effects on local business. We were told, for example, in Bundaberg how the local council under their state planning laws could not stop further development of large shopping centres, despite detriment to existing small business. Creeping acquisitions posed a dilemma between the loss of critical mass for the independent wholesaler and the right to sell a business following, often, a lifetime's hard work.The recommendation for a retail industry ombudsman will be the practical first point of call for small business people. The ombudsman will cover legitimate complaints outside the Trade Practices Act with a built-in procedure for resolving disputes quickly. The committee decided that the ombudsman should be funded by the government to achieve total fairness and objectivity and be nobody's real or perceived captive. We have taken this parliamentary inquiry right across Australia, and we have seen many examples of what I believe is unconscionable conduct—predatory pricing. We have been to every state in Australia, and there were unquestionably problems for the retail sector. The problems have been addressed by this committee and we have gone as far as it is possible to redress the concerns. I know that the small business sector will be disappointed that a cap will not be applied, but I say again that the difficulty of doing so would have been very considerable. It was a parliamentary committee which received representations from all sectors of the community. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.794310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! I have received letters from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats seeking variations to the membership of committees.16:38:007943Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I seek leave to move a motion to vary the membership of committees.Leave not granted.Bills7943A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following laws: Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999 Copyright Amendment (Computer Programs) Bill 1999 Bills7943r766Billsr746Billsr8657943Bills received from the House of Representatives.16:39:007943Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced by the Acting Deputy 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.794316:40:007943Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill will amend the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 and other legislation to bring ASIO's powers up to date, particularly in relation to modern communications technology. The bill will also allow ASIO to have access to certain financial information already available to Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies.The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 25 March 1999 and was referred by the Attorney-General to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization on 13 April 1999. The report of the Committee on the bill was tabled in the Senate and the House on 13 May 1999. The Committee's familiarity with national security matters and its expertise made it the most appropriate body to conduct this review. I take this opportunity to thank the Committee for its informed and considered examination of the bill.The Committee found that the bill achieves an appropriate balance between the public interest in ensuring that ASIO has access to the surveillance tools and techniques needed to safeguard Australia against security threats in the modern world and the private interest that ASIO's activities should not impinge unduly on individual rights and liberties.The Government has accepted all but one of the Committee's recommendations. There is also one other recommendation, concerning eligibility for membership of the Committee and not related to the content of the bill, which requires further consideration. I will refer again to the Committee's report later in my speech.The House of Representatives passed the bill on 11 August with two amendments proposed by the Opposition. The acceptance of these amendments is a reflection of the bipartisan consideration given to the bill by the Parliamentary Joint Committee and the House.I now turn to the bill.The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is the Commonwealth's security agency. It operates under statute to collect, evaluate and communicate intelligence relevant to the protection of Australia and its people from a number of specified activities, including: espionage, politically motivated violence, promotion of communal violence and acts of foreign interference. Its role is to inform and advise Australian governments, including police services, about those activities.This bill is directed at ensuring that ASIO remains capable of providing timely intelligence and advice to governments. ASIO is not a police force itself, for instance having no powers of arrest.The bill results from a periodic internal review of the ASIO Act and evolving changes in ASIO's operational environment, and in particular the impact of technological developments on intelligence gathering. Examination of the bill will reveal that it will not extend ASIO's functions but simply enable the Organisation to meet its statutory responsibilities in more efficient and effective ways. The bill is not a response to the challenges posed by a particular event or threat such as the Year 2000 Olympics, notwithstanding that ASIO will have an important role to play in ensuring the safety of the athletes, officials and spectators attending those games. Rather, the bill results from a considered examination of ASIO's capacity to meet its ongoing responsibilities to government in a rapidly changing information environment.In bringing this bill before the Senate, I have in mind that it is no simple or easy thing to achieve a balance between the rights of individual persons and the preservation of national security. But, in the final analysis, national security and personal safety are inter-connected.The recent terrorist attacks on US diplomatic missions in East Africa illustrate the human cost if security defences are breached. The Government is committed to ensuring that ASIO will be ready to play its part in domestic and international arrangements against terrorism.Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979The bill contains several provisions intended to improve ASIO's ability to access information stored in computers. These amendments are necessary given that information relevant to security is frequently stored as computer data. This is not a totally new power. ASIO is already able to examine computer information relevant to security under search warrants and telecommunications interception warrants. The new computer access provisions will allow ASIO to obtain access through other means which at present cannot be used.The bill makes provision for ASIO to do certain things which may be necessary in order to execute a warrant authorising it to access computer data. However this will be subject to a strict limitation that a warrant does not permit ASIO to do any thing that interferes with the lawful use of a computer or causes loss or damage to other persons lawfully using the computer.The new computer access warrant, subject to renewal, will remain in force for a maximum period of 6 months which is the same period that applies to telecommunications interception warrants.The bill will also permit the issue of warrants to ASIO authorising the use of tracking devices. The use of tracking devices will permit more efficient use of resources. In addition, these amendments are necessary as several Australian states are in the process of legislating to regulate the use of such devices by police and other members of the community. These amendments will permit ASIO to use a tracking device under warrant.Provision is made for ASIO to be authorised to enter property and enter or alter an object for the purpose of installing, using and maintaining a tracking device. The new warrant provisions are similar to the present section of the ASIO Act dealing with the use of listening devices.All the proposed amendments are within the existing accountability framework.The bill will also provide ASIO with a statutory authority to enter premises to remove a listening device or a tracking device which has been installed under warrant while a warrant is in force or within 28 days of it ceasing to be in force or, if the device is not recovered in that period, at the earliest reasonably practicable time. This provision is intended to provide for those situations where it is not possible for ASIO to recover a device undetected during the warrant period. The Minister will also be given the power to issue warrants permitting ASIO to examine an article being delivered by a delivery service provider.This amendment reflects the growth of such services which have lessened the value of the present warrant power to inspect postal articles which is restricted to articles carried by Australia Post.The bill makes a number of amendments to the provisions dealing with search warrants. These amendments clarify the test for the issue of a search warrant and ASIO's authority to use a computer found on premises being searched. The bill also lengthens the maximum period a warrant may remain in force to 28 days, although only one search is authorised, and permits the Minister to defer the commencement of a warrant for up to 28 days.Other amendments to the ASIO Act deal with the Minister's power to authorise ASIO to collect foreign intelligence in Australia. First, the bill extends the authority of the Minister to issue warrants for that purpose by taking into account the new categories of warrant which are introduced elsewhere in the bill. That amendment will maintain the present connection in the ASIO Act between warrants for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence in Australia and warrants for the purpose of collecting intelligence relevant to security. Secondly, the bill will enable the Minister, based on advice from relevant Ministers, to authorise ASIO to collect foreign intelligence by means which are not otherwise regulated under relevant warrant provisions, for example by the use of human agents.Another amendment dealing with warrants will broaden the range of warrants which the Director-General may issue in an emergency. As is currently the case, such warrants may remain in force for no longer than 48 hours and the Director-General must immediately notify the Minister.The bill will also provide the Director-General with a discretion to charge a fee to recover all or part the cost to ASIO of providing advice or a service to a person at that person's request. It is envisaged that a fee may be imposed where, for example, ASIO provides protective security advice to a State agency under paragraph 17(1)(d) of the ASIO Act. ASIO will not charge fees for the performance of its core function of communicating security intelligence. A further amendment to the ASIO Act will permit ASIO to provide a security assessment for state purposes in relation to the 2000 Olympics or Paralympics directly to a State or an authority of a State. This change will achieve administrative efficiencies in the communication of such assessments without extending ASIO's responsibilities. Because this amendment is specifically related to the Olympics, there is a sunset clause. The amendments also revise the penalty provisions in the ASIO Act to permit the calculation of pecuniary penalties according to the formula set out in the Commonwealth Crimes Act.Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988The bill amends the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to give ASIO access to information on certain financial transactions that are reported to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC).The amendments allow the Director of AUSTRAC to authorise ASIO to have access to the AUSTRAC database of reportable transactions in order to be able to follow the money trail (as happens in the investigation of criminal activity) and identify the financiers of major crime.This amendment means that ASIO will be able to follow the money trail associated with activities that are intended to harm Australia's security.Like organised crime, activities that are prejudicial to Australia's national security are likely to be connected with concealed movements of money, including movements of money into Australia. It is entirely appropriate that ASIO should be able to access such potentially important information which is already available for law enforcement. ASIO's authority to use and communicate FTR information is regulated by the amendments. In addition, access to the AUSTRAC database will be controlled by a memorandum of understanding agreed between the Director-General of Security and the Director of AUSTRAC. ASIO is also required to comply with ministerial guidelines regarding the performance of its functions. Amongst other matters, those guidelines cover ASIO's handling of personal information. The guidelines are being reviewed in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that information obtained from the AUSTRAC database is properly handled within ASIO.The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will monitor ASIO's compliance with the Financial Transaction Reports Act, the memorandum of understanding and the guidelines; and, to ensure proper accountability will report to the Attorney-General on those matters.Taxation Administration Act 1953The amendments to the Taxation Administration Act will permit the Tax Commissioner to disclose tax information to ASIO. This provision will put ASIO into the same position as law enforcement agencies who may already receive tax information from the Commissioner.This amendment will also assist strengthen ASIO's ability to conduct investigations into activities which involve concealed financial transactions. Counter espionage investigations are one example. ASIO's use of tax information will be controlled by a memorandum of understanding between the Commissioner of Taxation and the Director-General of Security, as well as the strict secrecy provisions of the Taxation Administration Act, and will be monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.Other consequential amendmentsThe bill contains a schedule of consequential amendments to other legislation arising from the decision to change the spelling of `Organisation' in ASIO's title.Committee reportI would now like to return briefly to the report on the bill tabled by the Parliamentary Joint Committee.In line with the Committee's recommendations, the explanatory memorandum was revised to make clear that the amendments to section 25 are not intended to weaken the test to be applied by the Attorney-General in issuing a search warrant.In response to another recommendation by the Committee, the Attorney-General obtained advice confirming that the original form of words in the bill would not allow ASIO to add, delete or alter data in a target computer, except for the purpose of gaining access to the computer. Nevertheless, the Government accepted that this issue could be clarified and has revised the explanatory memorandum to address the Committee's concerns, as well as the amendments made by the House.The Government has also agreed to the Committee's recommendations that the memoranda of understanding relating to ASIO's access to tax and FTR information be referred to the Committee for examination before coming into effect. Finally, the Government has agreed that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will report to the Attorney-General and the Leader of the Opposition on ASIO's recovery of listening and tracking devices outside the normal warrant period.In conclusion, I remind the Senate that ASIO performs functions which are fundamental to any responsible government and that, although many of its operations must be secret, ASIO is nevertheless answerable to ministers and through them to the Parliament and the people. I also remind the Senate of the mechanisms available to ministers and the Parliament to ensure ASIO acts lawfully and properly, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Honourable Senators may continue to have confidence in the measures.TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (POLITICAL DONATIONS) BILL 1999The bill will implement the Government's response to the taxation-related recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, following its inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 Federal Election. The bill was introduced as the Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1998.This bill complements other legislation which implements the Government's response to the other recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee—the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998, now before the Parliament, and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1998.Currently, the income tax law allows a non-corporate taxpayer to deduct a contribution (which includes a membership subscription as well as a gift) of $2 or more to political parties registered under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. However, a taxpayer cannot claim a deduction for contributions of more than $100 in any income year. Testamentary gifts or contributions are not deductible.The Joint Standing Committee recommended that the income tax law be changed so that the maximum annual tax deductibility threshold for political donations be increased from $100 to $1500, and that companies be allowed to make tax deductible donations. The word "donation" is a general term which covers contributions as well as gifts. The Government has accepted that recommendation.The Joint Standing Committee also recommended that the income tax law be changed so donations to an independent candidate at a Federal or State election are tax deductible, at the same level as donations to registered political parties.The Government has also accepted this recommendation. This will provide equivalent treatment for donations to independent candidates and members and political parties.To implement these recommendations the bill repeals the existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that apply to contributions to political parties and inserts a new Subdivision that applies to both contributions to political parties and gifts to independent members and candidates.The bill also allows taxpayers to make tax deductible contributions to political parties that are registered under State or Territory electoral legislation. This expansion will complement the tax concession afforded to independent candidates and members.The amendments made by the bill will apply to contributions to political parties and gifts to independent candidates and members made on or after 1 July 1998. This was the basis on which the bill was first introduced.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill.WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (YOUTH EMPLOYMENT) BILL 1999The bill will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 to remove the uncertainty surrounding junior rates of pay by exempting junior rates, on a permanent basis, from the age discrimination provisions of those acts. The bill will also exempt existing types of trainee wage arrangements to clarify that they are not to be considered to discriminate on the basis of age. The bill will amend the principal object of the Workplace Relations Act to include within its scope the protection of young people's competitive position in the labour market, the promotion of youth employment, youth skills and community standards, and the reduction of youth unemployment. These will also be objects to which the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must have regard in making and varying awards. In particular, the bill will require the Commission to further these objects by including junior rates in awards that apply to work that is or may be performed by young people, where the Commission determines it appropriate. A similar requirement will apply to award simplification. The amended bill makes it clear that the Commission is to proceed on a case by case basis when considering junior rates, and that the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that an award should be varied to include, remove or vary junior rates.Senators who are concerned about the welfare of the young employed and of the young unemployed should match that concern with support for this bill. The bill is about supporting and enhancing the job prospects of young people. It does this by allowing the existing system of junior rates to be retained, and by allowing junior rates to be made more widely available.Junior rates have been a feature of the wages system in Australia since early this century. Age-based junior rates of pay are set as a percentage of the adult rate, and usually increase annually until adult rates are payable. Over 400,000 young people under 21 are paid junior wages—this represents over half of all employed young people.Junior rates in awards and agreements have been under legislative threat since 1993, long before this Government took office. Under legislation intro duced in 1993 and 1994, junior rates would have had to be removed from awards from 22 June 1997. There is now widespread recognition that this legislative action was a mistake. The full implications of the legislation were not properly understood by its proponents at the time it was enacted.Since 1993 employers and other groups have waged a vigorous campaign to have the legislative threat against junior rates removed. The Coalition has consistently supported this campaign because it has recognised that the abolition of junior rates would threaten the jobs of young people. For that reason we opposed the 1993 legislation, and supported the retention of junior rates.On coming to government the Coalition introduced the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 into this Parliament, which sought to protect youth jobs by allowing junior rates to continue indefinitely. However, following discussions with the Australian Democrats when the bill was before the Senate, the Government agreed as a temporary measure to limit the exemption to a further three years, and to put in place a mechanism for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to review the feasibility of abolishing junior rates of pay. This reflected a compromise position only agreed to by the Government as a way of avoiding the legislated removal of junior wages. The Coalition agreed to the review on the clear understanding that our policy would continue to be for the retention of junior rates and that we would seek a mandate for this legislation at the next election. The mandate was obtained, and this bill will implement it.Under the existing provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, the continuation of junior rates in awards cannot be guaranteed after 22 June 2000. Until then, junior rates in all awards are exempted from the provisions of the anti-age discrimination requirements of the act. But this across-the-board exemption that protects junior rates expires on 22 June 2000.A number of Senators who spoke against an earlier version of this bill said that the bill should not have been brought forward until after the tabling of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission report on junior rates. Their initial opposition to the bill appears to have been determined by timing and process issues, rather than by the merits of the bill itself. This perceived difficulty has been resolved. The AIRC has made its report. The Parliament can now proceed to assess the Youth Employment Bill on its merits.In summary, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's report found that junior rates were important for getting young people into jobs, that none of the alternatives put to the Inquiry were feasible replacements for junior rates, that any move to abolish junior rates would cost young people jobs, and that the introduction of adult wages at 18 would have significant disemploying effects.The report of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission comprehensively adds to the case in favour of junior rates. It is a case that is already overwhelming. Any move to abolish junior rates would, in light of the Commission's report, be a highly irresponsible move, particularly given the delicate labour market situation that confronts young people. This should weigh heavily in the Senate's consideration given that it was legislative amendments made in this Senate in 1996 which initiated the process whereby the Commission reported to this Parliament.The findings of the Junior Rates Inquiry make it essential for the Government to now move to correct the legislative mistake made in 1993. It is now possible not only to remove the threat to junior rates, but also to include in the Workplace Relations Act provisions that recognise the need to ensure that young people are competitive in the labour market. The amended bill will ensure that for the first time, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be required to exercise its functions in ways that promote youth employment and assist in reducing youth employment.The Government has had three key policy objectives in relation to junior rates. The first is to permanently exempt existing junior wage rates from the age discrimination requirements of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This would reverse the effect of the 1993 legislation. A permanent exemption is essential to protect the jobs of more than 220,000 employees in the retail industry alone, which are at risk after June 2000 when the current temporary exemption expires.The bill will achieve this objective. It will also provide certainty for trainee wages (including wages for traineeships, apprenticeships, cadetships, and similar work-based training arrangements) by permanently exempting from age discrimination requirements existing types of trainee wages to clarify that they are not to be considered to be age discriminatory. This is intended to protect existing trainee wage arrangements without opening up the door for new forms of age discriminatory trainee wages.The second policy objective was to introduce for the first time new objects into the Workplace Relations Act 1996 dealing specifically with youth employment and youth unemployment. The bill achieves this objective. For example, the bill will insert an additional object and requirements under Part VI—Dispute Prevention and Settlement—of the Workplace Relations Act. These will require that the Commission's powers and functions in relation to making and varying awards be performed and exercised in a way that protects the competitive position of young people in the labour market, promotes youth employment, youth skills and community standards, and assists in reducing youth unemployment.The third policy objective was to enable junior rates to be included by the Commission in awards and industries where they do not currently apply, including during the award simplification process. The bill implements this objective. As well as allowing junior rates to be included in awards, the bill amends item 51 of Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, which deal with award simplification. In reviewing awards under item 51, the Commission will be required to ensure that if awards apply to work that is or may be performed by young people, they protect young people's competitive position in the labour market, promote youth employment, youth skills and community standards, and assist in reducing youth unemployment by including junior rates of pay where the Commission determines that this is appropriate. These and other junior rates issues are to be considered by the Commission on a case by case basis, taking into account the particular circumstances of each award. The bill also requires that when applications to introduce, remove or vary junior rates in awards are being considered by the Commission, the onus to demonstrate that the change should be made will be on the applicant. Such applications will be considered by the Commission under the new objects of the act, and the Government considers that applicants seeking to preserve or extend junior rates will be able to make out a strong case for their position.The bill will also address the concern expressed in the AIRC report that some aspects of the anti-age discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 are ambiguous and vague. The report suggests that these ambiguities will eventually have to be addressed in Parliament, in the Commission or in the Court. We agree that it is essential to remove any uncertainty about how the anti-age discrimination requirements of the act apply to junior rates. Any uncertainty about junior rates does not create a stable environment for the employment of young people. Young people and employers are entitled to know that their jobs and employing rights are secure.Given the current positive developments in the youth labour market and subject to the intended operation of these legislative amendments, the Government sees no reason why it would need to introduce further legislation in the life of this Parliament on the junior rates issue. From the Government's perspective this outcome provides certainty and should put the issue behind us for this Parliament.The Government will also proceed to make consequential amendments to the Workplace Relations Regulations to ensure the protection of junior rates in Australian Workplace Agreements.I commend the bill to the Senate.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Ordered that these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills7949r6467949Consideration resumed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The committee is considering the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and amendment No. 1 on sheet 1294, moved by Senator Greig on behalf of the Australian Democrats. (Quorum formed)16:43:007949Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This is the amendment by Senator Greig to add national competition policy as a matter for assessment, as far as the forest industry is concerned, before a regional forest agreement is ratified. I ask Senator Greig whether he is aware of attachment 12 of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, which says under `Generic Industries Development Actions':The Parties—that is, the state and the Commonwealth: Mr Howard and the Tasmanian Premier—agree to jointly implement the following generic actions:The first one of those is:Microeconomic reforms, including those in the National Competition Policy and reforms for both land and sea transport, aimed at improving the competitiveness of Australian industry.So there it is in black and white. Because Senator Troeth is unable to answer any of these questions even though she is hosting the bill for the government, I ask Senator Greig whether he is aware that national competition policy is actually written into the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, even though the government and, interestingly enough, the opposition are both trying to keep it out—the government being the strongest advocate of national competition policy you could possibly have.I am also aware that Senator Greig, like me, has a country upbringing and is concerned about the interests of regional people and would be particularly aware of the impact that competition policy can have for the good and for the bad of people in rural areas. On this occasion Senator Troeth is opposing the use of national competition policy. It is in the Tasmanian RFA, and I ask Senator Troeth: is it also in regional forest agreements affecting other parts of Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia? If so, why on earth not allow Senator Greig's amendment? It is in the agreement. Why would the government want to oppose in the parliament something already written into the agreement?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that Democrat amendment No. 1 on sheet 1294 revised be agreed to.16:50:00The 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. Bishop, T. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. *Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.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.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.16:54:007950Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move Greens amendment No. 4 on sheet 1265:(4) Clause 3, page 3 (line 3), at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , add "provided that those assessments have been completed and published;".I would like to take this amendment separately from No. 6. This amendment would insert into definitions in the bill a degree of certainty about the environmental, indigenous, economic and other assessments that have to be done before a regional forest agreement can sensibly be completed.What we have in this process, which has been slowly evolving since 1992, is the stated intention that regional forest agreements will come out of enormous enlightenment. There has been a huge amount of homework; in fact, the Commonwealth has put some $200 million into ensuring that that homework is done before regional forest agreements are signed, so that they will not be signed in the dark or on the run, and to ensure that there has been plenty of time for them.My amendment would add the words `provided that those assessments have been completed and published'. Let me put this into context. On page 2 of the bill, there is a definition of a regional forest agreement. It says:RFA or Regional Forest Agreement means an agreement that is in force between the Commonwealth and a State in respect of a region or regions, being an agreement that satisfies all the following conditions:(a) the agreement was entered into having regard to assessments of the following matters . . . It goes on to mention assessments of environmental values; assessments of old-growth forests; assessments of wilderness; assessments of endangered species; assessments of national estate values; assessments of world heritage values, which we were talking about this morning; and assessments of indigenous heritage values. It goes on to include, importantly, assessments of economic values of forested areas and forest industries; assessments of social values, which include community needs, a matter of enormous importance to Senator Troeth, who, like me, comes from the bush; and assessments of the principles of ecologically sustainable management—and we have seen silence from Senator Troeth when it comes to getting a definition of what that really means.My amendment would make sure that a regional forest agreement is legitimate only when these assessments have been completed and published; in other words, everybody knows what they are. In a way, it is put in for emphasis, because this legislation already says that a regional forest agreement means an agreement that has had regard to such assessments. So there can be little argument, from the government or anybody else, that the words `provided that those assessments have been completed and published' should go in. It would be a nonsense if we were to believe that a bill could say, `A regional forest agreement is one which has regard to assessments' and the assessments had not been completed, because it could not have had regard to those assessments. What I am doing here is tightening up the legislation in the time-honoured belief that legislation should be clear and concise and that it should say what it means and not leave any room for doubt.I am sure, under those circumstances, that Senator Troeth and the government—and, indeed, the opposition and everybody else—will want to support this amendment, but I have some reservations that Senator Troeth will be positive about this matter. I think she might be negative about it. Even though in western Victoria she is concerned about community needs, I think she is not going to support an amendment which ensures that community needs have been assessed before a regional forest agreement is signed. We will see soon, because she will have her opportunity to speak.I predict, because there has been no exception to this rule so far, that Senator Troeth will let the bush down, will not stick to her guns and will not require that assessments of the impact on bush communities, regional economies and community needs are done. She can cavil with this, but it may well be that community needs come a very long last in this government's estimation when lined up against woodchip corporations.Let me look at the Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreement in Victoria, which was signed in March 1998. Do you know that the mapping of the cool temperate mixed forest there, which was supposed to be part of the assessment upon which that regional forest agreement was based, has not yet been done? And do you know that that mapping process will not even begin before the year 2000? So here we have a situation in Senator Troeth's home state where, according to this bill, a regional forest agreement has to have regard to assessments of environmental values as well as economic values and so on, but one was signed more than a year ago for the Central Highlands of Victoria without an assessment of an important component being done—the mapping of the cool temperate mixed forest. So in effect, a whole ecosystem is missing from the reserve system and is being logged. What do you think of that? I am sure Senator Troeth will break from her previous silence and tell us.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Don't hold your breath.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am always optimistic that even Senator Troeth will come out of the dumbfounded mode, realise that she is being questioned about these matters, get up to speed and answer some of the questions that are critical if this committee is not going to continue to vote for a document which is not worth the paper it is written on, which is a have.Let me look at Senator Troeth's home territory, the west of Victoria. Mr Temporary Chairman Lightfoot, when she gets up, she will tell you that there is a regional forest agreement coming up for western Victoria. It has not been signed yet but, like all of these agreements, it is based on a comprehensive regional assessment. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 says that before the regional forest agreement is signed the assessment should be done. I have already pointed out that that does not happen, but you have to live in hope that this shonky process is not going to keep up until every last tree in these threatened areas is cut to the ground by the woodchip corporations. Let us look at that comprehensive regional assessment.Here is an assessment that has been done for an upcoming regional forest agreement. I ask the committee to consider this. On page 45 of that assessment, you will find an item called `The timber industry'—relevant enough to a regional forest agreement—and under that, in section 5(1), `Current position and outlook'. So we have to base our feeling about regional forest agreements on this assessment. We have a table entitled `Gross volume of logs harvested from the west region in 1997-98' and the table is in cubic metres. It has a list of grades of logs and then the sorts of trees. It takes you through each sort of tree to tell you how much of grades A, B, C, D and D-plus of logs, for each of those species, was harvested in the west region in 1997-98. The first area is the Otway, which you will know, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator Troeth—who lives a mighty lot closer to the Otways than you do—will be as familiar with it as the back of her hand.The first species here is ash. When you look across and add up the volume harvested in ash in the west region in 1997-98 and get to the total of all grades put together, you find it is 11,938 cubic metres. But when you add up the columns, you find that the total is wrong, that it is 23,876 cubic metres—twice as much as the table shows.You move to the next one—mixed species—a bit more hopefully. Any list could have a mistake in it, an error, a typo. Computers do things even in the logging industry arena, things that human beings cannot prevent. For mixed species, it says that a total of 32,556 cubic metres were cut in that year in Senator Troeth's own west region. But when you add up the columns, you find that, in fact, that is wrong. It is a total of 55,191 tonnes. And so on. These huge inaccuracies go right down the column. This is an assessment upon which we—as parliamentarians, not just the public—have to make vital decisions about a regional forest agreement which is coming up. Yet the figures are wrong in this table. They are not just minor aberrations; they are almost consistently wrong by up to a factor of 100 per cent.If that is an assessment on which a regional forest agreement was made in Senator Troeth's own region, what hope is there? I know that, with her familiarity with that region and her community, she will have been through this table and picked up these mistakes—and with the whole ability of the Commonwealth department, of which she is the parliamentary secretary—and will be able to tell the committee how such enormous mistakes, which could make a 100 per cent error in cutting rates if we were to take notice of them, could be incorporated into an assessment that will lead to the Prime Minister's signature on a regional forest agreement before the end of December this year.I am told that much of the critical assessment work for this very region has not been done. If the pattern for Western Australia, eastern and central Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania holds true, a regional forest agreement is about to be signed in Senator Troeth's own region, which has not had the assessment work done on it. We have a bill that says that such regional forest agreements will have regard to assessments, but how can they have regard to assessments that do not exist? Moreover, how can they have regard to assessments, like the one I have just referred to, that are grossly wrong? How can they have regard to assessments which are going to be done, as in the case of the Central Highlands, years after the regional forest agreement has been signed? What an appalling situation this is administratively. Where is the responsibility in it? I would like to ask Senator Troeth what her explanation is—for her home town region; maybe she cannot answer for everyone else in the country—in regard to these gross errors in that assessment and the assessments missing from the regional forest agreements that have already been signed.17:09:007952Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will not be supporting this amendment. We do not believe it is necessary. Indeed, it introduces to the legislation a further restrictive requirement that we would submit is intended as just one more of a whole series of proposals that could be designed to frustrate the process. The definition of a regional forest agreement requires that it be an agreement that satisfies the conditions that are laid out. One of those is that the agreement was entered into having regard to assessments of a range of matters. Those assessments would need to be done and could take a variety of forms. The proposal by Senator Brown is one which we believe is unnecessary, given that we have already proposed—indeed, this chamber has passed—an amendment to the legislation which requires that, before an RFA comes into operation, it will be the subject of both public and parliamentary scrutiny. There are certain requirements upon the Commonwealth minister to ensure that that process occurs. That is sufficient, in our view, and certainly provides opportunities, through that process, for raising concerns that people may have about the efficacy of an RFA. On that basis, we do not see a need to take the requirement as far as Senator Brown would propose.17:12:007952Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I also welcome you to the position of chair, Mr Temporary Chairman. The government will not be supporting this amendment. We cannot see what practical value this proposed amendment would have. For example, how could an RFA have regard to certain assessments if they were not completed? Further, while most RFA assessments have been released publicly, it may be that certain information contained in those assessments, say, on social and economic impacts, might be provided in confidence and therefore not have been published, or provided in such a way as to protect that confidentiality. So we do not see a need for this particular amendment.I say to Senator Brown that I am aware of the agreements that have been signed and are being signed in my own state of Victoria. In my experience, those agreements have been greeted with acclaim because they have provided an extremely comprehensive assess ment of community needs at every level. There has been acclaim for the signing of the North-East Regional Forest Agreement, which was reported in today's press. I also say to Senator Brown that my silence is not one of dumbfoundedness. On the contrary, it is one of contempt for the way in which he is trying to derail this process—a process which is intended to provide industry development, job security and environmental sustainability. That is why I cannot reply to some of the remarks he is making.I return to some of the questions you have asked. With a further development of your questions on Quamby Bluff, it has been confirmed that Forestry Tasmania are not conducting forestry operations in the area at this time. The last time they conducted operations in the area was approximately between March and May in 1998 in compartment Huntsman 307. At that time some indigenous concerns were raised by the local community, and local timber harvesting plans were subsequently modified. It is not planned to conduct logging operations in the area for at least 12 months, and in any case they will not occur in the area in which sensitivity has been indicated. Communication with the local indigenous groups remains open, and since that time they have not brought any indigenous issues forward.I also say to Senator Brown, in response to some of his earlier questions, that comprehensive regional assessments are conducted for all RFA areas, and they cover both indigenous and non-indigenous heritage values. These are also covered by the assessment of national estate values conducted by the Australian Heritage Commission prior to any RFA being signed.Senator Brown also raised a series of questions last week regarding progress on the various actions agreed under the RFA, and he has asked a similar question today. Again, I draw to his attention my answer on Thursday in which I indicated that the first annual report on the Tasmanian RFA is publicly available and that the next report is due at the end of 1999. These reports are there for the specific purpose of providing the type of information which he is seeking. I table the relevant extract for Senator Brown's information.17:16:007953Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The problem for the government in this matter is this. I raised the issue of world heritage value forests as an example. Forests in Tasmania that have been assessed to be of world heritage value by the balanced panel of experts set up to do that job are being logged under this regional forest agreement. If you look in a report coming out of the logging authorities such as the one that Senator Troeth just referred to, of course they are not going to have a world heritage item, because they are logging it. There is no answer to a regional forest agreement that says it is taking note of world heritage values—and indeed will protect them—but has had the assessment of the experts in that process totally overrun. Those world heritage value forests—which earlier on I described at length to the committee, so I am not going to delay the committee by doing it again—are being chainsawed down. As I said on the very brief occasion on which Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, was in this committee earlier in the day, he has been to this area; he has not only seen the forest of world heritage value standing but also seen the forest of world heritage value knocked down.We have a situation where the minister knows about it, the assessment says these forests are of world heritage value, and we know that logging these forests is not only logging forests of world heritage value but also damaging the existing world heritage's wilderness values in particular. But rather than action being taken, or any amount of sincerity being brought to the matter, they have been sent to the bulldozers, and there is nothing that can be done about it for 20 years under this legislation, except that should some more honest and enlightened process come to the surface further down the line and some future minister decide to act to protect the world heritage value of forests—and we will come to this a little later—the woodchip corporations can demand massive amounts of public compensation, taxpayer funded compensation, in return for not logging world heritage value forests. It is a totally unethical and inappropriate situation.Senator Troeth said that forestry is not being conducted at this time on Quamby Bluff but that it will be in 12 months time. The process fails when the indigenous community at Deloraine did not know that but now has 12 months warning and has no ability whatsoever to alter the approach of the bulldozers in 12 months to this region.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—But they have not brought any issues forward.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Troeth says they have not brought any issues forward. That is the problem here. Committees are places for communication. In earlier submissions to this committee—and again I am not going to delay the committee although Senator Troeth tempts me—I brought forward, at length, the concerns of the indigenous community of Deloraine directly to Senator Troeth. Now she says they have not brought forward any concerns. If you are dealing with that sort of mind-set you have to expect that the rights and concerns of indigenous people elsewhere are similarly going to be overrun and ignored.Senator Troeth got right to the heart of this matter in her response when she said, `How could an RFA have regard to assessments if they are not completed?' Good question. The question that really begs is: how can an RFA be legitimate if an assessment has not been completed? How can it be based on knowledge? I have moved an amendment to say that the assessments on economics, the environment, the social impact and the community concerns will be completed and published before an RFA is signed. That would solve Senator Troeth's problem, but she is going to vote against it. She sets up the question, which is `How could an RFA have regard to assessments if they are not completed,' but when I say, `Let us complete the assessments,' she says, `I am going to vote against that.'Can you credit that? Can you credit it that this is the Howard government's approach to making decisions based on information, let alone information it itself says in this bill will be available. It is a shonk. This process is tawdry. This process is not honest, it is not sincere, it is not consistent and it is not dinkum. Almost every clause that we get to—I do not know if there is an exception—points that out.Labor says that this amendment of ours would be a further restrictive requirement designed to frustrate the process. Getting information that the Labor and Liberal parties themselves have said should be obtained—and they say it here in this bill in black and white—`before an RFA is signed'—is now being claimed to be a process that is designed to frustrate the process. How do you—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Don't distort what we are saying, Bob. It is part of the process.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Oh, it is now part of the process! So now the assessment on these environmental, indigenous, economic and other values does not have to be until after the RFA is signed. In other words, it does not matter to either the government or the opposition what the assessment is. It does not matter what the economic ramifications are. It does not matter what the environmental ramifications are. It does not matter what the impacts on indigenous people are, much less—or more—the social values, including community needs in the widest sense. It does not matter what the information is. These regional forest agreements are being brought into place to suit the woodchip corporations. I think Senator Troeth shook her head.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have been very patient in listening to Senator Brown. It is clear what he is doing: he is taking every opportunity to take as long as he likes in the committee.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—Your point of order, Senator Forshaw?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I am coming to my point of order. He is taking as long as he likes to just basically talk it out and filibuster. The point of order is this: he should actually address the specific amendment that is before the chair. Senator Brown is continually going off on longwinded rhetorical diatribes, much of which is repetitive. We hear the same thing over and over again. In doing so he is distorting the position of the opposition in particular, as he has just done. I understand that to speak for a certain amount of time is a tactic that may be available to him under the standing orders, but I would have thought that in doing so he should address the specific amendment that is before the chair, not just give his umpteenth version of his second reading debate speech.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. There is no point of order, because it is available to me in this committee stage on a matter which I consider supremely important.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will decide, with advice, whether that is a point of order or not. What is your point of order?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, but to do that you have to listen to my reasoning, and I am maintaining that there is—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will rule on the point of order. I do not have to listen to your reason. Do you have a point of order, Senator Brown?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—On the point of order: you do have to listen to my reasoning, Chair. My reasoning is that there is no point of order because—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If there is no point of order, Senator Brown, you do not have a point of order. Are you speaking to another point of order? I am ready to rule: there is no point of order.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you. That is a very wise first ruling. I agree with you entirely. The Senate has heard from the Labor Party that the assessments would need to be done.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I never said that at all. I did not say that. This amendment is about publication of the assessment. I have never said anything about the assessments not having to be done. That is the problem, Bob. Tell the truth. Don't distort what other people say.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Forshaw, you are out of order.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, and a little emotional, Chair. Let me say that he is being dissected on this point.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—But don't you be deflected, Senator Brown. You can address the chair on your amendment.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes. I am not reflecting on anybody. I am just saying what I am doing.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I said not to be deflected. You can address the chair on your amendment, Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I see, thank you. I agree with you. Senator Forshaw said that this amendment was to frustrate the process. But the bill says these assessments will be done before an RFA is signed. Senator Forshaw is saying, presumably with Labor's backing, that where an assessment is done—and they always have to be done—the only alternative to not wanting them published and made available to the public is that they will be kept secret. That has happened. Let us look at Tasmania. The world heritage panel of experts report on world heritage values in Tasmania was kept secret. Senator Forshaw will know this. Why was it kept secret? Because it said that the regional forest agreement, if signed as proposed, would destroy forests of world heritage value.Let me talk about the Styx River valley in this situation. It is part of the Derwent River system. The Styx runs into the Derwent from the west, between Mt Field and the Snowy Range, just south of the Maydena Range. In that valley are the tallest standing trees in the Southern Hemisphere. These include trees that are much over 90 metres tall. One tree was assessed at the start of the last decade as 97 metres tall. If you have not been there, Chair, one of these days when you come to Tasmania I would delight in showing you them. To be with these trees is to be with the largest, tallest hardwood trees in the world, the second largest living entities on the face of the planet, next to the Californian redwoods.The assessments which showed that there are supreme natural values in this region were repressed. The outcome of that is that the state and federal governments—and Mr Howard signed this—have given a death warrant to much of the forest in the valley containing the tallest hardwood forests in the world, the tallest flowering plants in the world. Senator Forshaw says that I am trying to labour the point in here. I want to make this clear to the committee and I will back it up by my commitment to this in the past. As I see it, nothing could be more important than defending entities like the tallest living hardwood forests on the planet and all the wildlife that is in them and the ancient ecosystems that they maintain.I am not alone in this. Many other MPs have been involved in protecting forests. I can name the intervention for forests of former New South Wales Premier Neville Wran, for one. Many have said at the end of their time that their achievements in protecting forests are amongst the things that they value most in their whole political career. I can also say that those who follow us, the future generations, will be glad for every last hectare of these monumental forests that we protect, but we have here a document for their destruction. That is why I feel strongly about it. I may be the only one who speaks at length, but why should I not? It is an area I know extremely well—by that I mean forest regions. They mean an enormous amount to me and the people who vote for me and for the Australian Greens in general. Other people might debate taxation bills, industry assistance bills or competition policy bills at greater length than me, although I will contribute to all of those debates, but they do not have a valid point in trying to cut me short as the debate on these vital matters unfolds.Let me go straight back to the point made by Senator Forshaw that, before an RFA comes into operation, it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. He said that. That is not so.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Can be.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You said `Will be.' That is a substantial change. The problem is that, in the unfolding of this debate, we are going to see that Labor is not going to defend that for Tasmania or East Gippsland. It specifically cuts the RFAs, once brought into operation, from being available for parlia mentary scrutiny. It specifically cuts them out because of the influence of the woodchip industry, I submit, on the Labor Party, particularly in Tasmania, to ensure that it gets worse treatment than other places. You will note, Mr Temporary Chairman, that the Greens moved to fix this up and to make sure parliamentary scrutiny can take place as far as the Tasmanian and East Gippsland regional forest agreements are concerned, and we did not get the opposition support required to ensure that would happen.I also want to draw the committee's attention to a report on Astacopsis gouldi, and the government may be able to respond to this. (Time expired)17:33:007956Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Mr Temporary Chairman Lightfoot, I too welcome you to your new position of responsibility. The Democrats will support this amendment of Senator Brown's because it seems eminently sensible to us. The argument that RFAs ought not to be valid until assessments have been completed and published is perfectly reasonable. As a Western Australian, Mr Temporary Chairman Lightfoot, you would know, as I do, that the debate on RFAs in our state takes on at this time two very strong points of focus. The first is the overwhelming community hostility towards the notion of continuing to log our native forests. Secondly, there is the anger towards the government which, in my state, still refuses to release the details of the RFAs and the assessments to the public, who have been demanding them.Senator Forshaw is arguing here that, in his opinion, Senator Brown is simply trying to frustrate the process by allowing for what I see as this point of accountability in the RFA. If that is the case, he is then at odds with state Labor leader Geoff Gallop, who with his colleagues in that state continues to call for the explanation of the assessment process which took place in that state, most particularly the alleged 400 scientists who, we are told, worked together in putting together the Western Australian RFA. But they appear to be shadows in the night at this time because they remain faceless and nameless. The hostility in Western Australia over the argu ment surrounding the RFAs is not simply the implacable opposition to the destruction of our native forests; it is also opposition to the conspiracy of silence that surrounds that in relation to the signing off of that agreement between the Court government and the coalition federal government. For that reason, we support Senator Brown's amendment.17:35:007957Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I know that Senator Brown is going to get another opportunity to speak, so I would like to make a couple of comments in response to what he has said. I also belatedly welcome you, Mr Temporary Chairman Lightfoot. You have already demonstrated how admirably you occupy the position.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—I value your judgment, Senator Forshaw.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Thank you. I hope I get further opportunities to express it. What I was saying to Senator Brown in the earlier interjection is that it is quite wrong to suggest that, because we oppose this amendment, we do not believe the assessments should be done or need to be done. Senator Brown is trying to suggest that, because we would not support his amendment, which is that they be completed and published, we were somehow walking away from the process of undertaking those assessments. That is totally incorrect. The requirement is this: part of the overall process of developing, negotiating and reaching a regional forest agreement between the Commonwealth and a state involves conducting assessments on those various matters that are listed in clause 3.But of course those matters have their genesis in the national forest policy statement, in the inter-governmental agreements reached between the Commonwealth and the states. The RFA process is one that takes a considerable amount of time. We have seen that. We have reached the position at the moment where, depending on whether or not you regard the RFA in Western Australia as a completed one, there are at least five or six RFAs now finalised and there are a number more to come for the total of nine to be finalised by the end of this year. Those agreements have taken varying lengths of time.What I am putting to the Senate, and I do not resile from it at all, is that Senator Brown's amendment and the range of his proposals are intended to insert another impediment into the process. Let me paint you this picture: state government and Commonwealth government agencies are negotiating an RFA. The assessment work is being undertaken. The effect of Senator Brown's amendment is that, before that RFA could be entered into, that assessment, whether it includes confidential information or not, would have to be published. That would introduce a new step into the process as a requirement of this parliament. One can quite clearly see what is likely to occur from Senator Brown's perspective.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Public debate.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—No. Listening to all of Senator Brown's arguments today, Senator Brown will never accept that any assessment that has ever been done that he does not agree with is an appropriate assessment. His view is that, unless the assessments produce the result that there is no logging whatsoever in a particular area of, say, old-growth forest, or indeed probably any forest, then in his view the assessment would be invalid, incomplete, based upon false scientific evidence or whatever other reason he put up. That is his argument, and that is the argument he has been advancing all through this debate. He is saying that that is the situation with respect to the Tasmanian RFA. He is saying that in respect of the Victorian RFAs. He has already judged those assessments and found them incomplete, invalid, non-existent or whatever term he cares to use—he has used all of them—in order to support his own argument. So what then transpires in this process that Senator Brown wants to implement? A legal challenge. That is what this is about: to set up a criterion whereby further frustration, delay and challenge can be mounted against the RFA through the legal system. Frankly, we are not going to have a bar of that, if it is based upon that sort of tactical manoeuvring simply to try and support his political views on this issue.What do we have? We have a system that the opposition has put forward and has been passed by the Senate which will allow proper and appropriate scrutiny. Firstly, there is a requirement upon the minister to make the draft RFA available for public scrutiny by having it laid on the table here and having it published in the Gazette. Secondly, it is open to any senator or any member of the House of Representatives to move for disallowance of that RFA. For instance, if a senator or a member of the House of Representatives believes that the regional forest agreement between a particular state and the Commonwealth was not based upon proper assessments, that those procedures had not been carried out properly and that regard was not given to them—and I emphasise the words that are in the definition, `having regard to the assessment'—then it is open to them to bring that matter before this chamber or before the other place by way of a notice of motion, as contained in our procedures. They will have the opportunity to undertake parliamentary scrutiny of that RFA. That presumably raises the opportunity to seek to go behind the document, the RFA itself, and examine whatever one felt needed to be examined. We believe that that is the appropriate process that should be available.Whilst the proposed amendment by Senator Brown is dressed up as being about providing information to the public, that is not, in our view, its real intent. Its real intent is clearly to be seen in the fact that it would provide a trigger for constant legal challenge to frustrate the process. I leave my remarks there.17:44:007958Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The problem for Senator Forshaw's argument is that this is already open to legal challenge, as is any piece of legislation. This particular section that the Australian Greens are wishing to amend says that a regional forest agreement means an agreement that was entered into having regard to assessments of the environment and indigenous heritage values, and even principles of ecologically sustainable management. If the assessments have not been done, the agreement has not been entered into in a way which satisfies this clause. I am sure that the government has already got legal advice on that, because so often it is provided with legal advice by its mentors in the woodchip industry. But I am saying that I want to protect the government from that.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—That is very kind of you, Senator.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am a kind person, Senator Troeth, particularly when I am thinking about the life of the forests. I am trying to protect the government by making sure that there is no doubt in this piece of legislation, that we make it clear. As I said earlier, these things should be absolutely clear, so I have moved that the words `provided that those assessments have been completed and published' be added at the end of paragraph (a).I have heard Senator Forshaw's argument. I have heard his concern about these matters being published, that we would—through this amendment—be making sure that all the documents are available to the public. I am doing this because I believe in open government. But I have heard the concern the opposition has about all the documents being open to the public. I want to get around that problem so, with the leave of the chamber, I will ask that the amendment be shortened by taking off the words `and published'. I now seek leave to do so.Leave not granted.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—We will stick with the `and published' and, depending on the outcome of this, I will come forward later with another amendment doing exactly the same thing. I did not see who refused leave. Are we able to know such a thing? I think it was the government anyway, wasn't it, Mr Temporary Chairman? Anyway, I will come back to that in another way.Senator Troeth provided the committee with a report on the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement—the Commonwealth implementation report for 1998. If you look at that report, you will see in the left-hand column clause No. 39, which says that the state and the Commonwealth are `to jointly participate' in further world heritage assessment of the relevant themes by 30 June 1998. This is even after the regional forest agreement for Tas mania has been signed. Here we are still working out world heritage values. The forests had been handed across to the woodchippers but we are still going through this charade of working it out; it will be done nevertheless by 30 June 1998.Over in the right-hand column, Senator Troeth's own document says `action in 1998' to achieve that aim. Let me read what the action is:The Commonwealth proposed by letter on 22 June 1998 the process for further assessment of the eucalypt dominated vegetation subtheme using expert workshops. Tasmania—that is, the Tasmanian government—agreed to the proposed approach and nominated experts and participants.So here we have, eight days before the deadline—the umpteenth deadline—failure and a further process put in train.It does not say who the supposed experts nominated on both sides are. But we do know that at the outset the balanced panel of experts which was set up to look at this very matter, including world authorities in the field, had its report quashed because it did not suit the woodchip industry and it did not suit Prime Minister Howard—it was banned from publication. Here we have, with a regional forest agreement that was based on suppressing and banning documents—it was not an honest process, an open process—the state and Commonwealth, the Bacon government and the Howard government, getting together to let that process down again. That is written up in Senator Troeth's own document.If you move down to clause 14(2)(5), you will see under the column `1998 milestone action'—that is very fine sounding terminology!—the statement that the latest versions of all jointly owned data listed in schedule 1 of attachment No. 14 are to be exchanged. This is the action on looking into the environmental concerns that we are dealing with here under proposed section 3(a)(i).Under the `target date for this action to take place', it says `within three months of the commencement of the regional forest agreement in March 1998,' so that would be March, April, May and June of 1998 to see this action in exchanging data undertaken. When you move across in Senator Troeth's tabled document to see if that action was taken in 1998, here is what you get:Data had been exchanged for the National Estate but delays were experienced for wilderness data and CRA-RFA reports and associated maps. The remaining data exchange is expected to be completed by early 1999—That is, the year after—or this year. I am sure Senator Troeth and her minions can tell us about this action to get vital data on the wilderness in Tasmania.Remember that more than 95 per cent of forest wilderness is going to be protected under the regional forest agreement. Here we find out that the work done in assessing wilderness areas was not done before the regional forest agreement was signed by Prime Minister Howard and it was not done before the then Liberal Premier Rundle put his signature on it. We move into the period of the now Labor government in Tasmania of Jim Bacon and a period of delays being experienced for assessing wilderness data. You know that wilderness in Tasmania has arguably been the most studied of any wilderness quotient of any state or territory—maybe with the exception of the ACT—in Australia.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—The forest has been cut down to write all the reports.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—There is a constructive interjection. We have the senator opposite, who would not know that all Australia's reports can be made from plantation timbers, saying that we have to cut down native forest. He is somewhere back in the 1950s. I know him pretty well and we have to accept that. I do not think we will see him on his feet. We will hear the interjection now and then, but to go further than that would be a fair test for Senator Abetz.What I was saying before he interjected was that Tasmania has the best wilderness assessment data of any of the Australian states. The information was available before the regional forest agreement was signed—not least, the Australian Heritage Commission was doing very detailed studies on wilderness in Tasmania back in the mid-1980s, and the first wilderness assessments in Tasmania go right back to the 1970s.But here it says that there has not been an exchange of information even between the two governments, because delays have been experienced in getting that data and in getting maps. It is entirely unbelievable. I do not believe that for one moment. It says then that the remaining data is expected to be completed—and exchanged, presumably—by early 1999. So that date has passed, and I ask Senator Troeth, months and months after the signing of the regional forest agreement in Tasmania and after a then consequent deadline which she presented to this committee has been passed, whether in fact either of those things is being carried through.There are pages of this stuff, and I have looked at just one page. But does that not prove the point that what we need here is some assurance that these assessments will be completed before a regional forest agreement is signed? I maintain, unlike Labor, that they also ought to be published. How is the public going to take part in a debate if this information is not available? Being a Western Australian, Mr Temporary Chairman, you will know that one of the great criticisms of the Conservation and Land Management organisation in your state has been its proclivity for secrecy and not giving the public information, even when it does have information available, and therefore making people suspicious of the whole process.So this is an important amendment. I think it helps get round the problem that Senator Forshaw brought up of a possible legal challenge because, if you pass this, at least with future regional forest agreements—and we have them coming down the line for Senator Troeth's own home district of western Victoria as well as south-east Queensland and elsewhere—we will make sure that assessments have been completed and published to comply with the bill as it stands. This will be an act in law if it goes through, and we should make sure that it is bomb proof. I agree with Senator Forshaw: let us make it bomb proof, let us make it beyond legal challenge, let us not leave it confused and full of holes that you could drive a bus through. That is what good legislation should not be and that is what a good committee should be safeguarding legislation against. So if we are going to get that outcome, there will be support for this amendment, not just from our friends on the opposition benches but from the government itself. It is very important. It is crucial stuff.If we put that requirement into the legislation, at least with future regional forest agreements, it is going to save legal challenge; it is going to make sure the homework is done and the information is in before the Prime Minister is put in the invidious position, to say the least, of signing a document about which it could be said, `You did not know', because it would be in Hansard. For example, in western Victoria folk are saying assessments have not been done on the Wombat Forest—a place that Senator Troeth will know very well—and that sustainable yield is not assured there. Goodness gracious—the Minister for Forestry and Conservation that Senator Troeth represents has said a reassessment should be done. If the minister says an assessment is required to work out what sustainable yield is, who is going to countermand that? But surely it should be done before a regional forest agreement is signed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—I put the question that the amendment No. 4 moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.17:59:007960Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would just like to put on the record that it is not good enough for Senator Troeth, representing a minister in this place, to not be able to account for the minister's own assurances given on the public record. I was saying that Minister Tuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, has publicly said that there should be a reassessment of sustained yield values in the Wombat Forest area in Victoria for which there is an upcoming regional forest agreement.Is Senator Troeth going to get up and say that Minister Tuckey is wrong, that we don't need that assessment? Because that is what her silence gives assent to. Is she going to say that Minister Tuckey is not wise enough to reckon that you should know what a sustainable yield from a forest is going to be before you sign a document which sets the sustainable yield? That is common sense. But there isn't any common sense in this process. What we are hearing in this enormous silence is that, even when the minister says an assessment should be done to get to the facts, there is not going to be a follow through to ensure that those facts are available—and these are fundamental facts—before a regional forest agreement is signed. Page 2 of the legislation, under the clause we are dealing with, clause 3, says:Regional Forest Agreement means an agreement . . . that satisfies all the following conditions:(a) the agreement was entered into having regard to assessments of the following matters that are relevant to the region or regions:Subclause (c) says that the assessment should ensure that:the agreement provides for the ecologically sustainable management and use of forested areas in the region . . . that are under study. In the section I am dealing with it says that there will have been an assessment of the `principles' of ecologically sustainable management. This is what I am moving to have published. It is impossible for subclause (c) to be fulfilled if subclause (a)(v) hasn't already been done—in other words, if you haven't got an assessment of the principles of ecologically sustainable management for an area. It is not possible to have principles of ecologically sustainable management even in the government's terms—which means how much logging can be sustained to maximise output—if you haven't got a sustainable yield worked out. Minister Tuckey says there has to be a review for Western Victoria of sustainable yield.The whole thing is a pack of cards which falls down at the minister's own indication. A regional forest agreement signing is imminent and so far as we know—and Senator Troeth is agreeing with this, I take it, from her silence—there hasn't been a sustainable yield assessment review, as Minister Tuckey has called for. I am sure, Mr Temporary Chairman Watson, that you will give Senator Troeth ample opportunity to give us a progress report on her colleague's work in reassessing a sustainable yield in the Wombat Forest. That is pretty critical to our deliberations here today.I want to come back to the impossibility of what Labor is suggesting, that the assessments don't have to be done, or would not need to be done, or might not necessarily be done because the RFAs will be brought back here before parliament. I want to make this point clear. I come from Tasmania and, like you, sir, love the place and value very much that it is not made second-rate. But Labor is making it second-rate because it says: `Yes, assessments for the mainland but not for Tasmania.' Labor's amendment says that the regional forest agreement can be brought back here to parliament for review, unless it is in Tasmania or East Gippsland. So there is an impossible-to-fathom duality here, a difference of treatment, unless you understand the politics of it and the work of the Bacon government and the Labor Party in Tasmania to ensure that Tasmania doesn't get fair treatment in this matter and that a regional forest agreement is not brought up for review in the interests of the wider public. That is the problem.This is a very important amendment. I will be moving a reassessment for it. In view of the government's refusal of leave to shorten this amendment I will try again a little later. However, I would prefer this amendment to pass in the form in which it is printed.Amendment not agreed to.18:06:007961Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That was defeated because I couldn't get Democrat support for it, obviously. I move amendment No. (6):(6) Page 3 (after line 30), after clause 4, insert:4A Minister to be satisfied of certain criteria before entering into an RFA The Minister must not enter into an RFA on behalf of the Commonwealth unless the Minister is satisfied that: (a) having examined the capacity of existing plantations and recycling activities to supply wood for processing in Australia and published a report of that examination—there is no feasible and prudent alternative; and (b) the agreement provides that further clearing of public native forests for non-forest use or plantation establishment will be avoided; (c) there will be no detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of water in the region as a result of actions taken under the RFA; and (d) there will not be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of actions taken under the RFA; and (e) the State which is a party to the RFA has a wood products industry plan in place for further processing of wood sourced from existing plantations.I know that that last one in particular will appeal to the opposition. I want to take them in order because this particularly important amendment brings this bill in line with the national forest policy, which was begun under the Hawke government, developed further under the Keating government and finalised under the Howard government. So we have unison of support here.One of the important things about the regional forest agreement process is that prudent and feasible alternatives to logging native forests have not been looked at. Those who were on the Senate inquiry will remember that this was a major shortcoming pointed out by experts in the field. In other words, we have a wood products industry in Australia, with those wood products coming from native forests and, on the other hand, wood products coming from plantations and recycling, but this process of regional forest agreements looks at native forests to the total exclusion of plantations and recycling.Those of us who attended the Parliamentary Library forum last Wednesday will remember that forest analyst Judy Clarke told that forum that, these days, 75 per cent of wood products come from plantations and recycling and 25 per cent from the native forests. We have this extraordinary oversight. The move out of native forests into plantation for the production of all Australia's wood needs is happening rapidly anyway. It has been postulated by Ms Judy Clarke and others that there is already enough wood available in plantations to meet all our needs. Senator Quirke will know that in South Australia, which is not big on forests, the plantation allocation or availability there is already providing well over 90 per cent, if not 95 per cent, of that state's needs as far as wood products are concerned. That could apply and can apply right now in the other states. So there is a feasible and prudent alternative to logging native forests. We do not have to go through this tortuous business of trying to zip up and close the public concern for protecting native forests. With expeditious use of government moneys, we could be moving to facilitate its moving immediately across to the plantation basis.I also am very aware that in this matter the words `feasible' and `prudent' have not just been plucked out of the air. They are in the current government legislation when it comes to drawing up environmental impact assessments whereby, under the federal law, the minister is required to look at feasible and prudent alternatives where he or she is involved in a project that involves the Commonwealth. My concern here, and the reason for this amendment, is that that is being done away with in this legislation. `Feasible' and `prudent' go out the window. Commonwealth assessment of forests goes out the window. It is all handed back to state governments, which are under no such impulsion. So this extremely important and reasonable provision, if we do not build it into this legislation, will be thrown out the window.Part (b) of my amendment says that the minister should be satisfied that:. . . the agreement—the regional forest agreement—provides that further clearing of public native forests for non-forest use or plantation establishment will be avoided.I will not delay the committee by going over that ground again. But what we have found—and Senator Troeth has, as far as I have heard, agreed—is that establishing plantations in places like the Tarkine in Tasmania and in the southern forests that we were just talking about involves destruction of world heritage and national estate forests because it is a cut down, burn and poison process. Because this bill says that regional forest agreements have to involve ecologically sustainable forests, this amendment makes sure that it does not involve clearing public native forests for non-forest use because we know that that destroys the ecosystems of those native forests.Section (c) of my amendment says that the minister should be satisfied that there will be no detrimental effect on the quantity and quality of water in the region as a result of actions taken under the regional forest agreement. Senator Troeth—and, I am sure, you, Mr Temporary Chairman—will know that the quality of water is a matter of supreme and growing importance to all Australians. People are concerned that there is a deterioration of the water that is going into water dispensing systems for all manner of uses. But if you look at the minister's own area of Western Victoria, you find that, under the regional assessment there, there has been no discussion of the value of water versus timber in the Otways, even though under this legislation, the minister—in her own region—would be caught in the process of allowing logging in the catchments, for example, of the Otways. I can tell you one thing that is surer than the prospect of us getting dinner tonight—Senator Troeth interjecting—QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And that is that logging of those catchments will sully the water systems, and that worries people in the region. I did not quite catch Senator Troeth's comment on that, but I know she will give it to us in full later. What I want to ensure is that we will be true to the tenet of meeting community concerns—`community needs' is the exact term under the `Social Values' section—by doing an assessment of those community needs before a regional forest agreement is signed and by making sure that the water quality and quantity will not be sullied by logging operations carried out under that regional forest agreement. That is simple and plain—and popular as well, I can tell you, Mr Temporary Chairman.Under section (d) of my amendment there is a requirement that the minister be satisfied that there will not be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of actions taken under the regional forest agreement. That is very important because—as Parliamentary Secretary Troeth could tell you, Mr Temporary Chairman—logging of old-growth forests involves a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. That is because old-growth forests are carbon banks. One expert in the field told me—and I will come to this a little bit later because this is a very important part of our upcoming debate—that the amount of carbon stored in forests is equivalent to the square of the diameter of the tree. So as you get bigger forests, older forests, the amount of carbon in those forests goes up pretty well exponentially. When you cut down those forests, particularly in the burning process that occurs in Tasmania, much of that carbon escapes into the atmosphere. That which does not goes through the woodchip stream into the making of new paper in Japan. That paper goes to landfills where, due to the rotting of the landfills, much of the matter escapes into the atmosphere as greenhouse gas anyway.It is interesting to note that the sheer cheapness of woodchips in Australia is undermining the recycling business in Japan. That is a sensible alternative to this, but the rug is being cut from under it. The chair of the recyclers combination in Japan told me that himself when he visited Tasmania a few years back. So not only are we creating a problem by cutting down native forests and releasing otherwise stored and stable greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but, at the other end of the line, we are creating a problem whereby we see massive amounts of recycled paper that would otherwise be brought into use being dumped to create further greenhouse gas emissions.The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill—as Senator Troeth will aver—has been very strong on greenhouse gases and feels very proud of Australia's achievements in this field. So he would not, I am sure, want Senator Troeth to turn down an amendment to make sure that a minister involved did not increase the greenhouse gas emissions that result from actions taken in cutting down Australia's native forests.Finally, part (e) of the amendment says:. . . the State which is a party to the RFA has a wood products industry plan in place for further processing of wood sourced from existing plantations.I wish my colleague Senator Murphy were here because I am sure he would support this. I am sure his colleagues will want to. It is a good amendment, and I think you would agree with that as well, Mr Temporary Chairman. 18:22:007964Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—This amendment prohibits the minister from entering into an RFA unless he is satisfied that various criteria have been met. This proposed new clause is an absolute recipe for ongoing litigation, as opponents of RFAs could continually question whether the minister properly considered all the issues proposed under this clause. As we have just heard from Senator Brown's exhaustive description, anything and everything could be taken into account. Potentially, this proposed clause could bring the RFA process to a grinding halt; and let's face it, that is the real aim of the Australian Greens. This is one way in which they are trying to destroy and derail this proposed legislation, as we have seen from Senator Brown's activities over the last few days.Under current Commonwealth legislation under which the RFA process operates, the minister signing the RFA has to ensure that all environmental and heritage legislative obligations are first met. As Senator Brown well knows, that includes consideration of effects on water quantity and water quality. So in this regard the proposed clause is, at best, duplicating what is already in existence. At worst, it opens up the minister for double jeopardy.Some of the other considerations which are proposed in this amendment, such as avoidance of further public native forest clearing for non-forest use or plantation establishment and the prohibition on any increase in greenhouse gas emissions, are not, even if they were practical, the primary focus of RFAs, and therefore they may not be pertinent considerations for all RFAs. For those reasons, the government will be opposing this amendment.18:24:007964Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition is also unable to support this amendment. Whilst I take note of Senator Brown's supporting remarks that it is based upon the national forest policy statement objectives, we submit that it actually takes those objectives much further. In particular, it turns a number of them into absolute and immediate requirements. Of course the underlying basis of the national forest policy statement is that the agreement between the states and the Commonwealth in developing RFAs is to bring about change and improvements—some of those are identified in Senator Brown's amendment—and to do so in a balanced and progressive way. It is not possible that each of those requirements would or could be immediately met, such as the proposal that the minister must not enter into an RFA unless the minister is satisfied that there would not be an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of actions taken under the RFA.We believe that the intention is to bring about improvements over time, but, given that RFAs are in the process of being negotiated and are to be finalised before the end of this year, it is not possible in each case to guarantee that every one of those requirements would be met. If this amendment were to be passed and those absolute tests that Senator Brown seeks to put into this legislation were applied, it would mean that the federal minister could not sign an RFA, notwithstanding that it may well comply with all of the requirements of the national forest policy statement.We believe that our amendment—which has been passed by the Senate—to reflect the goals and the requirements of the national forest policy statement in the objects of the act is the appropriate approach to be taken in regard to these matters. Each of the issues that Senator Brown's amendment is directed towards is picked up in one way or another in the objects clause. For instance, issues in respect of water quality, promoting further processing of timber from plantations and the development of industry plans are picked up in the first object in the clause, which is to develop:an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources . . . We would suggest that, while some, if not all, of the objectives that Senator Brown has directed his attention to here are noble ones, they are reflected in the national forest policy statement and they are reflected in our objects clause. To put them into the bill in the way Senator Brown proposes, whereby they become absolute requirements that must be met immediately or there can be no RFA, is to distort the purpose of the national forest policy statement and unduly frustrate the process of developing and finalising regional forest agreements.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:007965Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—As I was saying before the dinner adjournment, one of the very important components of this amendment is to ensure that the minister who is involved with the regional forest agreements in any area of Australia looks at prudent and feasible alternatives to the logging of native forests. The obvious prudent and feasible alternative is the plantations of this nation which can supply our legitimate needs for wood and paper. Australia has well over a million hectares of plantations. Plantations and recycling already provide 75 per cent of the wood and paper based employment in the country.When Senator Quirke was in the chamber before, I was referring to the example of South Australia which has no native forest logging industry at all but its plantation industry employs six times as many people as the entire Australian native forest export woodchip industry, although it uses only one-tenth as much wood. So on an employment to wood ratio, that is a 60 to one advantage from the South Australian plantation industry, with its downstream processing, compared to the woodchip industry in native forests which does its downstream processing overseas.Ten years ago, Tasmania had four pulp or paper mills consuming old-growth native forests. Now there is none. We have heard from other members of the committee how Amcor's mill at Burnie imports material from Indonesia. The newsprint mill at Boyer—that is at New Norfolk, just upriver on the Derwent from Hobart—consumes some regrowth native forest, as does the Wesley Vale mill up near Devonport. Plantations provide the bulk of the input to these mills nowadays—things have changed. Meanwhile, two of the four pulp mills have closed altogether due to international market forces.ABARE's forest product statistics show that in the last year sawn timber produced from native forests has decreased by seven per cent, while sawn timber produced from plantations has increased by 14 per cent. Australia's native forest sawn timber production in plantations is now 2.230 million cubic metres per annum, whereas native forest is not much more than half that at 1.418 million cubic metres per annum, a fall of seven per cent. Despite these trends, the unimaginative old-growth destroyers of the native forest industry are still trying to compete directly with the plantation industry for products such as scantlings, palings and pallets. They are cutting their own throats and dooming their own workers to unemployment queues.As we were discussing earlier, the only way in which this can continue is for the people who are cutting down native forest timbers to get more and more public subsidy. We see attendant on this legislation and the regional forest agreements tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money being poured into a non-competitive industry. It is not going into the established plantation industry; primarily, it is going into the native forest industry to help them compete when they are not competitive.What would be helpful to the committee—to underscore what I am saying—is for Senator Troeth to give us the government's figures on how many people are employed around Australia, with a breakdown for each state—that would be better still—in the plantation sector I have been talking about, and then how many people are employed around the country in each state in the native forest sector of the wood and wood products industries. What other figures? My amendment, I maintain, says, `Let's make sure that we get this industry across to the prudent, feasible and employment rich alternative of a plantation industry based on downstream processing.' The government wants to lock in for 20 years the imprudent and, of itself, unfeasible—it needs propping up with public money—and destructive alternative of the logging of the forests.The national forest policy statement, which both the government and industry say is the basis for the legislation before us, said that native forests were not to be cleared for plantations. But the government, in this legislation, has totally jettisoned that commitment—one of many. There is a fundamental commitment that gets thrown out because, as we know, for example in Tasmania's wild forests, the logging operations lead from mature, ancient rainforest and tall eucalypt forest ecosystems to cultures of genetically modified, fast growing plantation species, bereft of the richness of the original ecosystem.The figures I have show that in Tasmania last year, on public land alone, over 7,000 hectares of native forest were slated for replacement by plantations—that is, 45 per cent of all the forest logged was leading to plantation establishment. So much for the national forest policy statement and its commitment. That 45 per cent included old-growth forest and rainforest. At least a similar amount was cleared on private land in Tasmania. About 15,000 hectares of native forests are destroyed every year in Tasmania to make way for plantations, paid for by the Commonwealth taxpayer. This is totally unnecessary because we already have the plantation base for our wood needs in this country. This is a profit driven industry, and I submit that it would not even be that if it were not for the transfer—indirectly and directly—of taxpayers' money through governments into the industry which gives it the profit line required for sustenance.The figures I have just given are backed up by the Tasmanian Forest Practices Board annual report of 1997-98. That report stated that the proportion of logged state forests in Tasmania converted to plantation rose from 14 per cent in 1996-97 to 42 per cent in 1997. On private land, it rose from 45 per cent to 53 per cent. The government is thumbing its nose at the national forest policy statement and, far from reversing the replacement of wild ecosystems and native forest ecosystems—of whatever quality—and keeping those in what Senator Troeth tells us are sustainable forestry operations, in an ecologi cal sense we are getting an acceleration of the destruction. It is actually being accelerated.Once again, we see that this bill is not worth the paper it is written on. It is doing the exact opposite of its promise. The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement says that a minimum of 80 per cent of the state's forest has to be managed as native forest in perpetuity. That means that 20 per cent of Tasmania's forest had been written off for total destruction at the outset to be replaced by plantations and other non-forest uses. But on North Forest Products' private land in the north-west of the state, in areas fringing the Tarkine and elsewhere, the state government—and this was endorsed by the federal Howard government—licensed the destruction of 6,800 hectares of pure rainforest for plantations in 1997. How far backwards we have gone. Ten years ago, this was banned. You could not log such rainforests for woodchip and export.However, instead of improving forest management, while we hear the term `ecologically sustainable logging' squeaked all over the place, it in fact turns out to be a determined lie. The rainforests off that 6,800 hectares now sit on squalid piles of woodchips at the Burnie wharf. They are the dark coloured ones against the lighter coloured eucalypt pile. These are not little piles that you might imagine a sand pile to be; these are piles where bulldozers drive up one side, across the top and down the other. They are huge. You can imagine those 6,800 hectares of rainforest that I want to save through this amendment because it is unnecessary that they are destroyed for this pursuit. They are amazing; they are beautiful. I have distributed pictures of them in this chamber showing how they end up as windrows and rubbish tips to be burnt at the end of this so-called ecologically sustainable process. All the wildlife in them will be dead; all the ecosystems, we are told, will be ruined, and it is all totally unnecessary because the plantation establishment is there to provide our needs.It is a pity that Senator Murphy is not here because I think he has spoken on the matter in this place. But if he has not done so, I will outline it to the committee anyway. North, which owns these forests, advertised for a component of them to be used as sawlogs. We are told that it is a sawlog driven industry. A couple of people applied and said, `We will come and take some of the sawlogs before you woodchip them.' That is how, we are told, the healthy industry works. Their applications were not accepted. Every stick of those rainforests is in that woodchip pile at Burnie under the tenets of this government's forest policies. Who can justify that? Certainly not Senator Troeth; certainly not Minister Tuckey, were he here; definitely not Senator Hill, whose record on the forest environment in this country will be counted against him forever.The government is exporting this mentality to other states through its 2020 Vision of 1996, which aims to treble the area of Australia's plantations by the year 2020. Much of this will be at the expense of native forests, woodlands and grasslands—the very things that we are told will be protected in this regional forest agreement. People might think that I should go quietly on this. I will not. Let it be on the record. That is all I can do; I do not have the numbers here. But let it be stated at least that no member of this chamber votes for this bill with their eyes shut—votes for the inherent duplicity and destructiveness of this legislation. Here I am moving for a feasible and prudent alternative which is available to this government, and the test is whether either the government or the opposition will support it.19:45:007967Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats support this amendment by Senator Brown. We do so because the amendment seeks—and it is the core of this issue—to take the notion of the environment and put it smack bang in the centre of the regional forestry debate, which is so lacking on the question of the environment. Earlier Senator Abetz was in the chamber and Senator Brown was speaking on the need for completing and then publishing the results of assessments on RFAs. From across the chamber, Senator Abetz interjected that that would require the felling of further trees to print the paper. There is no greater illustration than that comment as to how wrong both the govern ment and opposition are in approaching the issue of wood and paper.As has been said time and time again—though it has fallen on deaf ears, I fear—we do not have to log our native forests to produce paper. It is that simple. There are alternatives. We must look seriously at plantation timbers, we must look seriously at hemp production and I am learning of late about the exciting prospects of a new African development called kenaf. The double benefit of that is that it contributes in terms of the carbon sink. One of the points Senator Brown is making with item (d) of his amendment is that there ought to be no increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of actions taken under the RFA. If we get away from the notion of logging and destroying our native forests and towards the production of alternatives, we have the potential, the opportunity, to produce thousands of hectares of hemp, for example, not only grown to be harvested and then processed into paper, saving the destruction of our native forests from woodchipping, but in the process acting as an immense carbon sink and contributing towards the reduction of greenhouse gases.As I said, this amendment at its core forces people to take a position on the notion of `Environment'—with a capital E—in this entire debate and takes us away from this relentless mantra that the forests are there simply to be a kind of factory, to be plundered in the name of jobs, when in fact we know that there is much greater potential for labour-intensive programs under production timbers. For those reasons principally, we Democrats support this amendment.19:49:007967Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I think the government members here are alert to what is going on and I am surprised that there has been no comment on this. There has been a deafening silence. It is quite irresponsible. This is the debate the destroyers of native forest do not want to have. They do not want to face the fact that what they are doing is unnecessary. The whole point of this legislation is to enforce an industry which has no legitimacy. It has no legitimacy because it is not necessary and the people of Australia do not want it. There is a prudent and feasible alternative.I would have thought that we would have Senator Troeth and the government well versed on this and putting forward the usual counterarguments. But at least she has had the sense to recognise that those arguments cannot be justified. They do not hold water. She is not going to get caught trying to defend the indefensible; I will give her that. She is not going to get caught trying to say that the plantations do not exist, that they are not in volumes enough to supply all our wood needs, that every bit of framing timber that is required for housing, for example, can come out of plantations these days. We do not need to cut a further native forest tree down. The minister also, by her silence, is acceding to the fact that the plantation base is there for paper making in this country and we do not need to maraud our forests any more. I thank her for that acknowledgment.It has been said earlier in the debate, by the way—and I am sure you are a bit puzzled by this, Chair—that we have to fix up our balance of payments because we are paying twice as much for imports of forest products as we pay for exports. But that is not facing the reality that we export twice as much wood as we import. What we are importing, if you look at those figures, is worth four times as much per tonne as what we are exporting. Why is that? That is because the downstream processing is done overseas. They are not as silly as this government and the people behind this RFA. They know that is where both the profitability and the job creation are.But what are we doing in Australia under an RFA that exists in Tasmania? Filling up the wharves with piles of woodchips out of native forests, including rainforests, as I have just said. Next to them are the huge, bigger than a house, plantation timber log piles going to South Korea for processing. Is this industry prudent and feasible? No wonder the government opposes those two words being endorsed. There is nothing prudent in the way in which this government is locking in the fate of the native forests in this country for the next 20 years and everything feasible in better alternatives. I am so sorry that we cannot get a debate on this issue in this chamber at this time and that, with all the might and weight of the Howard government behind these regional forest agreements, this government is not even prepared to debate the central win-win situation put forward in this chamber tonight.We have repeatedly seen today how this RFA does not hold up. It is a colossal fraud and illegitimate—and unarguably so, otherwise we would have the government up here arguing the position. Of course it cannot. It does not serve regional Australia, because if that were the case we would be promoting plantations and downstream processing where the job creation is. Let me give you an example. Twenty-four months ago I visited a native plantation sawmill at Scottsdale in north-east Tasmania. It was highly automated. The Greens had a proposal there for moderate investment in downstream processing and assistance to the plantation based industry in north-east Tasmania. It was much less investment than the colossal amount being handed across to the woodchip industries. What we were proposing there would have created 800 jobs for regional Australia.We should be debating that here tonight, but instead we have a silent minister and an absent government that knows it cannot take on this debate against one or two senators who feel strongly about forests. It has capitulated because it knows it is wrong. That was highlighted by today's brief visit in here by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Robert Hill, who should be sitting at Senator Troeth's side now. He is the one who assured us about ecologically sustainable logging. His absence, in particular, from this chamber throughout this debate speaks of the failure of the government to honour those words `ecologically sustainable logging'. If the government did honour those words it would be supporting this amendment. This amendment calls on the minister to make sure that ecologically sustainable logging occurs and that the logging that occurs in this country is the most prudent, within feasibility, logging that the nation can have. But the government sits bolted to its seats for the debate itself—though not when it comes time for a vote on this, because they will move to the other side of the chamber if I get the Democrats' support for a division. I think it is culpable. All we can do is get that set down on the record. One only has to look at the furore at the moment in Western Australia over governments that do that sort of thing to be able to sound a warning here in this heartland debate we are having at the moment. The government, like the Court government in Western Australia, cannot put its head in the sand and hope that nothing will happen as a result of this intransigence and deliberate effort to fool itself, because it cannot fool the populace at large. We are going to get out of this a campaign against native forest logging for the next 20 years, if that is how long it takes. We are going to get pressure all the way down the line for the government to turn around, come back to this night and undo what it is doing tonight by turning down this amendment which would make sure that the minister not necessarily goes across to the plantation alternative but assesses it before regional forest agreements proceed. That is what this amendment says. The government is not prepared to do that. It says, `No, we deliberately refuse to look at the alternatives that are available.' When it does that, it turns its back on a very informed and earnest public opinion out there.When this issue continues to blow up in the coming years and the concern that is in Western Australia at the moment reignites in the eastern states in the wake of this legislation, it will be because tonight, when Senator Troeth was challenged to get up and argue the case against plantations being the source of Australia's wood based products immediately and into the future, she sat bolted to her seat yet again. It is irresponsible and it is to be condemned. It is quite clear that this amendment will not proceed, but let it go on the record that we tried. Let it go on the record that the government—and the opposition with it—not only voted it down but also refused to get up and debate it.I cannot say how strongly I feel about that matter, how strongly the people who support the Australian Greens feel about that matter or how strongly an even bigger number of people who do not vote for the Australian Greens feel about that matter. This is a failure of responsibility in a democratic system of government. It is a failure of information, it is a failure of debate, it is a failure to respond to public opinion, and it is all on the altar of a handful of woodchip corporations that make big donations to the government's election coffers. What could be worse than that?There we are. We have a lot more amendments to get on with and I am in favour of expediting this debate as best we can. It would be faster if the government were giving answers and responses, but in the wake of that we are left to disclaim about the government and to move on to the next amendment hoping that we will get a better response, but the form of the last two days shows that that is not so. However, I commend this amendment. It is a central amendment. It is a challenge to the government's commitment to the national forest policy which it says underwrites the regional forest agreement. I conclude by saying that the government's actions show that that is a lie. That is a deliberate and carefully thought out subterfuge. I feel sorry for the parliamentary secretary, who has to try to defend that situation. As I said earlier, I know that her silence means she agrees with the argument I am putting. That is how I assess the situation.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—Don't be ridiculous.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The parliamentary secretary says that that is ridiculous. That being the case she can get up and put her point of view. Otherwise I simply say that she is not up to it. The government has left her stranded because it is not up to it either. Behind all this are the hands of some big and influential corporations pulling the rug from under the national interest and, through weak-kneed politicians, getting their way. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.20:07:00The 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.39Bishop, T. M. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Evans, C. V. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Mackay, S.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Ray, R. F. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.20:10:007970Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 1527:Clause 3, page 3 (after line 3), at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , add "provided that those assessments have been completed".I would be pleased if the committee would give consideration to this new amendment. It comes about, as you will be aware, Mr Temporary Chairman, because the government blocked my seeking of leave to give this very amendment before dinner. Just so the committee knows what this means, we are back to the definitions on page 3 of the bill, in particular the central definition of a regional forest agreement. The bill reads that a regional forest agreement means an agreement that is enforced between the Commonwealth and a state in respect of a region or regions and that satisfies a number of conditions, the first of those being that an agreement was entered into having regard to assessments on matters which it lists. They are environmental values, old growth, wilderness, endangered species, national estate values and world heritage values. Then under a separate category there is indigenous heritage values. The third one is economic values of forested areas and forest industries, the fourth one is social values, including community needs, and the fifth one is the principles of ecologically sustainable management. I would add after that the words `provided that those assessments have been completed'.Firstly, let me reiterate that I believe the government is getting itself into a mess here if it does not get rid of the internal contradiction of defining regional forest agreements as having needed to have regard to the assessments on those matters but then not requiring that the assessments have been done at all. It is crazy. What this amendment does is simply confirm that the assessments will be done so that they can be considered, before the regional forest agreement is signed, on the basis of the information coming out of those assessments. That is what the national forest policy said will happen. That is what Senator Troeth says will happen. That is what all parties agree is going to happen. But I have been able to inform the committee comprehensively today about how there is a massive across-the-board failure of the very commitment to see that the assessments are done and the information is in before the regional forest agreements are signed. This is no light matter. Mr Temporary Chairman, I am just having a little bit of trouble with the conversation and concentrating on the procedure at the moment.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—I do not think you should let the conversation bother you, Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—But it is bothering me, Mr Temporary Chairman. Thank you.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I think you contributed more toward bringing about order than I did, Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—This is very important to me and I do want to concentrate on it, and I want the committee to concentrate on it. The problem is that we have heard how with existing regional forest agreements the assessments are not done. In fact, Senator Troeth provided the committee with a progress report, if you like, on the Tasmanian agreement. I just looked at page 1 and was able to immediately spot, in the government's own assessment, two cases where it not only had not done the assessment before the regional forest agreement was signed by the Prime Minister but also then set a date afterwards for the assessment to be completed and failed to do that. Ridiculous indeed, to use Senator Troeth's word. I am trying to help the government to get this process at least onto the track that it was always promised to be on.Earlier, before dinner, Senator Forshaw said, `Senator Brown is trying to make this legally challengeable by setting conditions that are not met.' That gave the game away. I am just making it clear and indisputable that the bill means what it says: that there will be assessments done in those matters listed in the run-up to a regional forest agreement. But earlier when I tried to make that clear and defined, the government and opposition said no. The jury is out on that, and that is why this amendment is here.If I understood Senator Forshaw correctly, the particular concern of the opposition was that my original amendments had provided that the assessments be completed and published. There was some concern that that would simply lead to the information becoming available to the public and therefore the public being armed with information which would make it difficult, supposedly, for those in this industry to defend themselves against. That is their time-honoured tactic; there is nothing new in that. I did not want to endorse it but Senator Forshaw is concerned about it, so I have taken the words `and published' off the end of this.You will remember, Mr Temporary Chairman, that the committee turned down my original amendment—I could not even get a person to help call a division on that one—but now we have this pure and simple. The government should be supporting this. The amendment makes it abundantly clear that the assessment comes in, regard is given to the assessment by both parties—that is, the Commonwealth and the state involved—and then, on the basis of that, an agreement is reached which is in effect the regional forest agreement. In that way we do not have the Prime Minister flying to Perth, Brisbane, Hobart, Sydney or Melbourne signing documents that are misleading or misuse the promise to the Australian people that this work would be done and that, based on it, there would be assurances that there would be ecologically sustainable logging. I maintain that I am here preventing—at least for future regional forest agreements, because I think the horses have bolted in the ones that have been signed in recent times—the government from getting itself in a position where there could be a legal challenge.By the way, Mr Temporary Chairman, I would encourage Senator Troeth to inform the committee of any legal advice the government might have that would help throw light on this matter. If the government has not got legal advice on this, I can assure you that the woodchip corporations have. They provide their legal advice to the government; they have done that in drawing up this legislation. They advised the government, for example, to put in clause 7 on compensation and the government said, `Please give it to us and we will put it in.' So that information is there and it would be very helpful to the committee to have that information, which would encourage us all to vote for this amendment.The assessments were to be done in Western Australia as well as in Tasmania. I have outlined the Tasmanian ones and I do not want to delay the committee by going over that territory again, so let us move to Western Australia and have a little look at the outcome of the assessments there. Some of the things that had to be assured in that assessment were the principles of ecologically sustainable management, as well as environmental values for wilderness, old-growth forests, endangered species and so on.The outcome as of 1 June this year—there have been some adjustments since—was that for old-growth forests 55,000 hectares of `new' old-growth reservation was announced but, secretly, 9,300 hectares of already approved old-growth reservation under the then forest management plan had been revoked. So up front the government is saying it is doing this but out the back it is whittling away the very promise of the plan being revealed to the public. We are left with a net increase of just 45,700 hectares or 13 per cent of the conservation and land management authority's figure for total remaining old-growth forest to be protected. More than half of that—26,300 hectares—is woodland or non-commercial old-growth forest that industry would not have wanted and could not have logged commercially anyway. Industry get in the main, on average, the big, most majestic and inspiring forests of the lot to destroy.The total old-growth forest in genuine conservation reserves, according to a Western Australian Forest Alliance analysis, goes from 46 to 60 per cent, or from 4.6 per cent to six per cent of the original old-growth forest—six per cent of what was there in the first place. That is called a `comprehensive and adequate reserve system'. The West Australian Forest Alliance is not a favourite of the government, and I think even Minister Tuckey has said some disparaging things about arguments and the need for science and facts in Western Australia. Well, I have a lot more here. But, just on the ones that I have read out, it is clear that the homework has been done. Representing Minister Tuckey tonight is Senator Troeth, and her silence after I sit down will be testament to the fact that these figures are correct and that the national forest policy, in terms of it being carried into an honest fulfilment in this document, has been abandoned.Ten per cent of remaining old-growth forest will be in so-called informal reserves in Western Australia and their narrow strips of degraded forest remnants left along streams and roads after the bulk of the forest is clear-felled. That is the leftovers syndrome, which is central to the sleight of hand that occurs when governments announce they are conserving forests but really they are not. The other 30 per cent of old-growth forest is now available for wholesale clear-felling and woodchipping, which gives industry a grand total of 56 per cent of the original old-growth forests in Western Australia and genuine conservation six per cent.Early in this debate, Senator Troeth spoke about balance. You see that that is where we end up. The people who put funds into the government election coffers and their associates get 56 per cent of the forests and the patch in the pants conservation groups—which represent 87 per cent of the feeling of the people of Western Australia, according to the last opinion poll I saw—get six per cent. There is something rotten in a process which leads to an outcome like that and there is something disdainful about a government advocate who says that that is balance.Genuine reservation in the karri main belt forest type in Western Australia is up by just 1,515 hectares under the failure of the assessment system which I am trying to fix up through this amendment. It has gone up by that amount to 28,838 hectares, which is 54 per cent of current old growth—that is what is left—but it is only 14½ per cent of the original old growth. Of the total of 295,000 hectares of new reserves, which the regional forest agreement in Western Australia proclaims on page 32, 27 per cent is old growth and 43 per cent is regrowth. The total forest reserves are just 144,000 hectares and 30 per cent is non-forest. So on it goes. You need these assessments to come in. There needs to be honesty brought back into this, and the government needs to be rescued from the duplicity of this situation by ensuring that these assessments have been completed and assessed and that only then the Prime Minister is asked to put his signature on them at the end of an honest and proper process. So I recommend this amendment to the government and to the committee.20:25:007972Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Just very briefly and simply, I indicate that the Democrats will be supporting Senator Brown's amendment.20:25:007972Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons I outlined before. I would like to refer back, while I am on my feet, to Senator Brown's claim earlier that Minister Tuckey had said that a reassessment of the sustained yield figure for the Wombat state forest was necessary. In fact, Mr Tuckey said that an independent assessment of the sustained yield calculation should be conducted so that the community could have absolute confidence that the Wombat forest is being sustainably managed. Mr Tuckey is confident that this will in fact confirm the reliability of the Victorian system but believed, following representations from the Wombat Forest Society and the agreement of the Victorian minister, that an independent assessment was appropriate. The results are expected to be available for inclusion in the directions report for the West Victorian RFA. I should report that a similar process was used in Western Australia when similar concerns were raised.20:26:007973Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—If that is the case, for reasons I have just been enumerating, we have to worry, don't we? So Minister Tuckey has confirmed, through Senator Troeth, that I was right—that he has called for a reassessment and that he wants that to be independent. The question that immediately arises is: who is the independent reassessor? Is this not just another agent of the woodchip or the logging industry? Senator Troeth is amused by that, but I feel it is a very serious inquiry, and my concerns on behalf of the people who think the Wombat forest is being cut unsustainably—and remember that this is in Senator Troeth's own home area—deserve to get a truly independent arbiter in this matter.We who are conservation advocates and believe in the alternative plantations I was speaking about earlier are sick to death of governments getting in people from the logging industry to assess the logging industry. I explained earlier that, when somebody does break away from that system and reports come out that do not favour the industry, they get squelched, they get sat on, they are refused public exhibition and they are shredded. I would think the same situation applies to the Wombat forest. I do not know whether the government is going to support my amendment. I was speaking about the Western Australian situation. I could go on at great length about the areas of Western Australia where there was promise of protection under the process outlined in this section of the bill, the definition of the regional forest agreement, but that promise has been broken. Here I have an amendment which simply says, `Let's stop the promise breaking. Let's make this an honest process.' Can you believe that the government is not even prepared to comment on that? I will make a prediction: it is going to vote against it, but the Labor Party will not.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—You're no genius. I just said we were.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I might not be a genius, but I did say earlier that I was an optimist, and my optimism has taken a battering during the day. While I give the government plaudits for its consistently negative attitude to any constructive proposal brought up in this place, I am always optimistic that it will support an amendment which helps its own case and defends its very assailable position.But if this does end up in the courts, as Senator Forshaw thinks it might, this debate will be at least read by those people on either side who want to find out why the government put forward such a sloppy definition and who, on the basis of RFAs already signed, had no intention of keeping within it anyway. On every regional forest agreement signed it has broken the promise in this definition that assessments and regional forest agreements would be done on the basis of knowledge. There is no exception to that rule. Senator Forshaw said that Labor was concerned about the information getting into public hands.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I did not say that. Why don't you tell the truth. Check the Hansard . I never said that. Come on!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—We will both have a read of the Hansard . The fact is that Senator Forshaw voted down my amendment.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. It concerns the necessity for Senator Brown to at least try to stick to the amendment. While I am on my feet, I did indicate to Senator Brown that our amendment provides for the matter to be laid on the table. Draft copies are available. If that is not providing information to the public, I do not know what is.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—There is no point of order. Senator Forshaw, I ask you to not go into debate when you are on a point of order in future. There is a time to do that, and it is not when you are taking a point of order.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I was just making the point that the Labor Party voted down my amendment to have these assessments made public. However, I felt the debate left open room for voting for the fact that at least the assessment should be completed, hence this amendment. The amendment comes about because I did hold a hope that Labor would support it. If that happened and the Democrats supported it, we would get breakthrough support for an amendment.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—But you won't.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—But we won't, says Labor. They know that Labor governments, like the one in Tasmania, which is not even threatened by this amendment because it has ensured second-rate treatment for Tasmania, would not have a bar of having this process put on the rails. So there it is.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The question is that Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet 1527 be agreed to.20:37:00The 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.47Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A.Evans, C. V. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Macdonald, I.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Quirke, J. A. *Ray, R. F.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.20:42:007974Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move Democrats amendment No. 2 on sheet 1294, revised:(2) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 3), after paragraph (a) of the definition of RFA , insert: (aa) the agreement was entered into only after having been made available for public comment;Democrat amendment No. 2 relates to public comment. We feel that this is largely self-explanatory. We believe strongly that there should be a public comment process on the use of our forests. In Western Australia the opportunity for public comment was promised but was not given. This then set up a climate of secrecy and suspicion, which advantages no-one but those who benefit from the secrecy of government decisions.As I said earlier in relation to another amendment, there are two core aspects to the reaction to the RFA in Western Australia. On the one part, there is hostility towards it because of the overwhelming rejection by the general community towards the whole notion of logging our native forests. The second part is the way in which the state government went about it, in conjunction with the federal government, and the secrecy that was inherent in both aspects of that. Given that both the Labor Party and the coalition have made many comments about this issue when they have been in opposition, and both claim to aspire to public accountability with every election, it stands to reason that they ought to support this amendment, and we look forward to their support on it.20:44:007975Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The government is perfectly satisfied that the amount of public comment which is able to be used on the regional forest agreements is more than adequate to enable everyone who wishes to say anything or to make any sort of submission on the regional forest agreements to do so. Those people have every opportunity to make their views known, and therefore the government will not be supporting this amendment.20:44:007975Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I indicate that the opposition does not see the need for the amendment. Accordingly, we will not support it. But, in saying that, I think that it needs to be put clearly on the record that we believe that there is a substantial opportunity for the public to be involved in the process. If nothing else, what has occurred in Western Australia in recent times demonstrates that that opportunity has been available.We understand, of course, that governments or ministers may not necessarily always take notice of that public view. That is why we have sought to amend the legislation in the manner in which we have. Such things as the insertion of the objects clause, recognising the detailed national goals of the national forest policy statement, and, more particularly, our amendments to provide for a process of public and parliamentary scrutiny are the means by which public comment and public involvement can occur. Of course, ultimately, that can be taken up in this parliament in the manner that we have proposed. Consequently, we do not see the need for the particularly restrictive proposal from the Democrats.Frankly, the debate has already been had. There has been a lot said about this whole issue. As I said earlier in an interjection, there has also been a lot of misinterpretation—in fact, a lot of deliberate misrepresentation—particularly by Senator Brown, of the position of the opposition; and the record will show what. We do not see the need for this amendment, particularly bearing in mind the amendments that we proposed, which have already been passed by the Senate and which we believe are adequate.20:47:007975Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Let me assure the opposition that I do not engage in deliberate misrepresentation. But as you will know, Mr Temporary Chairman, in the interpretation of what people say in this chamber there will be differences of opinion, and that is all that has occurred here. I did not mean to upset the good senator in my interpretation of what I thought I heard him say earlier in the day. I am sorry if he feels that way about it.I support this amendment because it is just plain commonsense. Would it not have saved the Court government in Western Australia a heck of a lot of trauma if this amendment had been in place? What Senator Greig is saying is that, when a regional forest agreement is ready for the Prime Minister's signature with whichever state leader is involved, it should be put out for public comment. The public should have a look at it before the Prime Minister signs it. Remember that as things stand in this committee and as this legislation came to us from the House of Representatives, there is no opportunity for parliamentary review. Even under the foreshadowed Labor amendments there will be no opportunity for parliamentary review for Victorians in East Gippsland or for Tasmanians—none at all. Even if there were, one thing that is much better and more essential than parliamentary review is public review, because—and let us get this absolutely clear, Mr Temporary Chairman—the forests do not belong to us in this chamber and they do not belong to the government ministry or the bureaucracy; they belong to the people of this country.So is it not right and proper that, for an agreement which for 20 years locks destructive woodchipping and other logging practices into those forests—and there is no getting them back once the forest ecosystems have been destroyed—the public have a say on what the government says is the end to that destruction because we are going to get ecologically sustainable logging? Senator Troeth could not tell us what that meant. There is no definition in this legislation of what that means. So where do you have to go to see what ecologically sustainable logging—the bulwark of this promise to the public—is? You have to go to the regional forest agreement itself. The definition varies from state to state, and Senator Troeth agrees with that. I tried to get an amendment through so that ecologically sustainable logging would be the same around the country, but the government wants it to be different from place to place and, in that sense, hints already at the duplicity in the use of those terms, because we have established that ecologically sustainable logging is excluded by clear-fell woodchipping practices. But the promise is there. That is what we are dealing with in the definition of the regional forest agreement. It says:. . . the agreement provides for the ecologically sustainable management and use of forested areas in the region.Senator Greig has referred to Western Australia. What happened in Western Australia was that the regional forest agreement came out and Mr Howard and Premier Court said, `This is ecologically sustainable forestry here,' and the people of Western Australia, in their wisdom, threw that out of court. They knew that that was bunkum. They knew that that was absolutely inconsistent with the regional forest agreement, with its wholesale destruction of the magnificent forests in south-west Western Australia over the next 20 years.So great was the furore after the signatures went on the paper that the government in Western Australia started fracturing itself. And so great was the furore that thousands upon thousands of people turned out in the streets and in the halls of Perth—and indeed elsewhere in Western Australia—to protest about this failure of the promise of ecologically sustainable logging in Western Australia. And there are continuing protests in the other states—in my home state of Tasmania, in Victoria and in New South Wales—where regional forest agreements have been entered into. How much more sensible it would be, once the regional forest agreements come out, to let the people see them and respond before trapping the Prime Minister in the situation of putting his signature to a document, the promise of which is found to be not in the substance. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wants to be put in that position or not. He has done it repeatedly, so I suspect that, if he does, he is a repeat offender in that sense.We have here a government that is scared of public opinion in this matter. It does not want to face up to the Australian public and those consistent opinion polls showing that the government is wrong, wrong, wrong on this matter. No amount of deception will change that, but I think the government inherently agrees with you, Senator Greig—through you, Mr Temporary Chairman—that the public exercise brought forward in this amendment, of allowing comment on a regional forest agreement before it is signed, will uncover its shortcomings, and that is the last thing the government wants. That is the last thing the government's bullying allies in the woodchip industry want, and the last thing that thugs who beat up conservationists or their equipment or threaten their lives in the forests want is for the public to have a fair go. What a situation.Senator Greig says, `Let's learn from that experience' and, at least with future regional forest agreements—and there are more coming down the line—make them available for public comment before some other government gets into this Court government mess and this Howard government mess. This government has become recidivist. It says, `We owe too much to our woodchip corporation sponsors to allow ourselves to be opened up to public opinion.' That is why it is not going to support this amendment.Amendment not agreed to.20:55:007976Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos R4 and 6:(R4) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 8), after paragraph (c) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (ca) if the agreement is made after 1 March 1999, it was made in accordance with the public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions of this Act; (6) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 10) after paragraph (d) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , insert: (da) the agreement provides for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families;Amendment No. R4 proposes to vary clause 3 to insert a new paragraph (ca). Just about everything that needs to be said has been said in earlier debates with regard to this issue. The amendment gives effect to other proposals which have already been endorsed by the Senate, whereby regional forest agreements made after 1 March 1999 are open to the processes of public and parliamentary scrutiny that are outlined primarily in amendment No. 7, which was carried earlier.I can anticipate some of the arguments that will be put by Senator Brown in particular, because he has said on a number of occasions that this proposal applies to RFAs entered into after 1 March and, by virtue of that, three existing RFAs would not be subject to the processes of scrutiny that any subsequent RFAs would be.There are two points I wish to address here. Since this bill was introduced into the parliament in June 1998, we have consistently expressed the concern that the government was seeking a blank cheque from the parliament for legislative backing for agreements that, at that stage, had not been finalised and whose terms and conditions were as yet unknown. That is still the case.There has been a significant passage of time since the bill was first introduced, since the report of the Senate committee, and indeed before the debate has come on in the committee stage. In that time, only three further RFAs have been finalised. One of those is the RFA in Western Australia which has been the subject of substantial public debate and concern and has also been the subject of political—I don't want to use Wilson Tuckey's word `warfare'—disagreement. There has been another RFA finalised only recently in Victoria and another one in recent days in the south-east of New South Wales.That still leaves some three or more RFAs to be negotiated and finalised before the end of this year. In at least one of those cases—the WA RFA—there is substantial disquiet and concern, particularly with regard to the decision of the Western Australian government, subsequent to the signing of the RFA, to unilaterally change conditions in the future for logging in old-growth forests. That has led to a situation where it is questionable as to whether or not there really is any agreement in total between the Western Australian government and the federal government and the federal minister as to a precise and permanent RFA for Western Australia.The two other RFAs that I referred to in Victoria and in New South Wales, whilst they have been signed, have only recently been signed and would be subject to the proposed public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions that we have put before the Senate, which have indeed been passed. That is because they have been signed after 1 March 1999.The principle really is this: the first three RFAs—that is, in Tasmania, East Gippsland and the Central Highlands of Victoria—certainly at the time of the introduction of this legislation and certainly at the time the legislation came before, firstly, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for consideration and, subsequently, before this chamber, have been in operation for a substantial period. Implementation of those RFAs was well under way. They enjoyed bipartisan support from the relevant state governments and parliaments. Indeed, they had been signed off by the state government and the federal government well in advance of the debate commencing on this legislation in this chamber.We have taken the view that it would be totally unfair, and would frustrate and possibly seriously impede the operation of those agreements, to have subjected them to the processes that we have put forward in this legislation for parliamentary scrutiny. No doubt some will argue that this is inequitable treatment, but it is not, the reason being that those three RFAs—the Tasmanian RFA and the two in Victoria—had been implemented, were well under way, had been in operation for some time and had been subject to a substantial amount of not only public scrutiny but also parliamentary scrutiny, at least certainly in debates. If nothing else, one can point to the evidence that was put before the Senate committee in relation to the number of inquiries that had been conducted in respect of the Tasmanian RFA and the whole issue of forestry in Tasmania. We have a different situation to confront when we deal with those RFAs that are still remaining to be finalised or those that have only just been finalised. We believe it is appropriate that the provisions we have put forward would apply to those RFAs and to any others that are to be entered into between now and the proposed cut-off date of 31 December this year. It really is about the question of the integrity of the RFA processes and providing an opportunity for them to be subject to the scrutiny that we have outlined.Our amendment gives effect to the requirement that, if the agreement is made after 1 March 1999, it is made in accordance with the public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions of this act. The revised amendment that is proposed here picks up the proposition or suggestion that was actually contained in the legal advice obtained by the government, which Mr Tuckey sought to rely on to suggest that the proposals were unconstitutional. We have rejected those arguments but, further, it was made clear in that advice that terminology along these lines would clearly be constitutional.The other amendment, amendment No. 6, proposes to add to the definition of an RFA or a regional forest agreement the following words:. . . the agreement provides for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families . . . This gives effect to a recognition in the legislation that an essential part of this whole process is the structural adjustment that will occur, that will have to be funded and that will include appropriate relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families and be consistent with our objective and the objectives of the national forest policy statement with respect to the future development and restructuring of this industry. I would urge senators to support these amendments. They are integral to the key amendments that we have moved: firstly, a provision for public and parliamentary scrutiny; and, secondly, recognition of the need to develop and enhance our forest product industries through bodies such as the wood and paper industry council.21:10:007978Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I move amendment No. 8 to opposition amendment No. R4 as shown on sheet 1290:(8) Amendment (R4), paragraph (ca) of the definition of RFA or Regional Forest Agreement , omit "if the agreement is made after 1 March 1999, it", substitute "the agreement".Quite simply, our amendment seeks to go further. It seems to us that there are no logical or rational reasons why 1 March should be the cut-off date for reviewing signed RFAs and allowing for a future disallowance other than the political reasons, which have not been articulated. Our theory is that what we have before us is not so much a sociological or environmental proposal as a political one.Taking the review process back to 1 March would, I suspect, very much advantage the Labor Party because of the simple fact that it would mean reopening the thorny issue of the RFA in my home state of Western Australia, where the issue continues to be a millstone around the neck of the government and where community outrage is as strong as it has ever been. The RFA in Western Australia has been a debacle from start to finish. It would clearly be to the advantage of the Labor Party to capitalise on that, and setting the date of 1 March to go back and review it would allow that to happen. But then we must ask the question: why stop there? Why not look at all RFAs? The answer, I suggest, is that that would mean we would have to look at some other thorny RFAs, most particularly in Tasmania, where there is a state Labor government. We believe that all RFAs, not just some, should be subject to this part of the definition, and we stand by that.21:12:007978Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—May I add, for the benefit of Senator Greig, that when the proposal was first mooted the date of 1 March was chosen as a date in the future. Indeed, the opposi tion's position was clearly enunciated in the Senate committee report and subsequently developed in the draft amendments. That position was that future RFAs should be subject to a process of parliamentary scrutiny. At that time—and I have already commented on this—the legislation was due to come before the parliament in February. It did not do so and it has been on the Notice Paper virtually since that time. When we drafted our amendments we did so on the basis that future RFAs should be subject to the process. However, one had to specify a date and the date 1 March was set because it was a date considered appropriate at that time. Prior to that, there were only three RFAs in operation and they had been negotiated and signed off much earlier.The fact that time has elapsed beyond the date of 1 March is not a reason, in our view, to bring the date further forward. Our position has always been that there were special circumstances as to why the three existing RFAs that have been in operation for some time, and indeed before this legislation came before the chamber, should not be subject to those provisions but all other RFAs should be. That is the explanation. There is nothing magical about the date of 1 March other than that those are the circumstances in which that date was chosen at the time. It would still be applicable, in our view, because it would allow for those that have been signed off since that time, only in recent weeks, to come within the purview of the amendments that we have proposed in respect of parliamentary scrutiny.21:15:007979Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I wish to indicate that the government will be voting against both opposition amendment No. 4 and opposition amendment No. 6. Opposition amendment No. 4 is an attempt to retrospectively discriminate against the RFA for the South-West forest region in Western Australia signed on 4 March 1999 and, inadvertently or otherwise, any other RFA signed after that date, such as the RFA for the North-East region of Victoria, which was signed on 23 August 1999, and the RFA for the Eden region in New South Wales, signed on 25 August 1999.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—WA was 4 May, not 4 March.GX5Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETH—Thank you, Senator Forshaw. My point still stands. As it currently stands, the Western Australian, North-East Victorian and Eden RFAs have not been made in accordance with parliamentary and public scrutiny provisions contained in the opposition's proposed amendments; nor have the three other RFAs signed prior to 1 March 1999. However, at this time it is only the Western Australian, North-East Victorian and Eden RFAs that would not receive the protection of the bill if it were to come into force today.How are those three RFAs different from the Tasmanian RFA, the East Gippsland RFA or the Central Highlands RFA? The only difference appears to be a political one, not one that goes to the substance of the agreement or to the process undertaken in its development. The situation foreshadows the political football that the future RFAs will become if the parliamentary scrutiny process adopted by the Senate ever comes into operation. Indeed, I have legal advice from the Office of General Counsel that raises serious doubts that such a provision is enforceable in any case. I quote from advice given on 10 August 1999, page 5, paragraph 10, and pages 6 to 7, paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 17:At the outset it should be stressed that the operation of the proposed amendment to the definition of "RFA or Regional Forest Agreement" and a number of other provisions of the Bill is not clear . . . I think that a court may have difficulty in giving the proposed amendment of the definition of "RFA or Regional Forest Agreement" . . . any effect.. . . . . . . . .Another problem is the logical inconsistency of requirements relating to parliamentary and public scrutiny purporting to apply at a time before any RFA is in place. Since the RFA has not been concluded at that point, it cannot impose any such requirement.. . . . . . . . .In addition, the requirements in the Act relating to parliamentary and public scrutiny are preconditions to an RFA being made—once the RFA is made those provisions can have no effect. Also once an agreement has been made, the public and parliamentary scrutiny provisions of the Act cannot be complied with. Even with the proposed operation of draft paragraph (ca) of the definition, as that provision is in the form of a requirement for an RFA rather than actions that need to have been taken for an RFA to be valid, a court may well hold that the provision cannot be complied with. Therefore, in my opinion, the provision is so uncertain in its operation that it is very difficult to say what approach a court may take.So the government will be voting against amendment No. 4.With regard to opposition amendment No. 6, there is no indication in the proposed amendment as to what benchmark an RFA would have to meet to qualify as providing for such structural adjustment packages. If we look at the RFAs that have been entered into to date, there is no single approach taken to this issue. This is due to the fact that, firstly, the impact of an RFA on industry structure in each region is different, requiring different approaches to structural adjustment. For example, there is no structural adjustment package for Tasmania, although there is a package related to industry development initiatives. Secondly, in states with multiple RFAs, such as Victoria and New South Wales, structural adjustment packages are constructed on a state-wide basis, so there is likely to be only passing reference to them in individual RFAs.This proposed amendment will also serve to create confusion. For example, there are similar concerns to those expressed previously as to whether existing RFAs would be able to comply with these definitional requirements, thus requiring amendment and subsequent parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, we do not support these amendments.21:20:007980Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The government says that bringing regional forest agreements—so far understrapped by $200 million of taxpayers' money—before the parliament involves retrospective discrimination and that it will be a political football. I put it to you, Chair, that the Prime Minister of this country, the Rt Hon. John Howard, flying to Tasmania to sign a regional forest agreement—with minimal forewarning, with his then Liberal colleague in Tasmania, and running into immediate protest from the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities and having to leave the signing ceremony over a cornfield—is a farce. It was not a political football but an absolute farce. It is a dereliction of the Prime Minister's responsibility to ensure that parliament is the scrutineer when it comes to not only the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money but also the exploitation of Australia's forests, which belong to the Australian people.Senator Troeth said it will end in confusion, variously also saying en route that it will not stand up in the court. I do not think there is much confidence in that assessment by the government or it would not be opposing this amendment so vehemently. But it will end up in confusion. Is that not what we have got in Western Australia? And who is most confused there? It is the Liberal Party, split all over the place and caught out by a public that will not put up with this process, because there was not a review process by either the people or the parliament. When the government says there are legal questions about this Labor Party amendment and presumably therefore the worthy amendment from the Democrats of that amendment, it begs the question of why the government does not want these regional forest agreements vetted by the parliament. What does the government want to hide? I can tell you: it is huge public opposition to these regional forest agreements and it is a tremendous commitment to the companies I have spoken about a number of times today who visit the halls of power, and who find it so easy to connect with the political power base in this place and to have their way against massive public opposition.If the process will not stand up in court, then let the government put forward the process that will stand up in court. There is no doubt that the court will read the intent of this amendment, see that the parliament meant for there to be scrutiny and proceed from that base. I think probably the advisers to the government think, `Well, we have to give the advice that the government wants to hear so, for the sake of this public debate, we will say the court might not accept this as a legitimate amendment to the legislation.' Well, it is at least as good as the shoddy piece of legislation that the government has brought in here which, as I said earlier, you can drive a bus through in all directions. When I tried to amend it to help the government, to at least mend a few holes in this leaking sieve, the government turned down the help. It does not want it.Of course that is all nonsense. The government here does not want the people to be able to review the regional forest agreements or have a say in them after they are formulated and it does not want the parliament, on behalf of the people, to do that either. It is a thoroughly undemocratic attitude—with its face against the people, its subservience to the big end of town against the interests of the people of Australia. I want to make it clear that, as a Tasmanian, I am appalled that there would be any senator in this place who might vote against Senator Greig's amendment. Why should we—or, for that matter, why should the people of East Gippsland or the Central Highlands of Victoria—get second-class treatment under the Labor amendment as it stands? Senator Forshaw gave us an argument about when the decision was made to proceed with this policy. I have given the political analysis which is behind that.Let me just talk a little bit about Tasmania. In Tasmania we have a government which is brutal and which has seen no peer when it comes to its proclivity to destroy the world heritage, national heritage and eternal values of the great forests of Tasmania. You would have thought that a Labor government could not be worse than a Liberal government, but it could be and it is. The Liberal government, which then had a dependency, to some degree, on the Greens led by Christine Milne in the House of Assembly—before Labor and Liberal got together to change the electoral system as their only means of being able to reduce the number of Greens in the parliament—decided that a minimal 50,000 hectares or so of Tasmania's great forests should be protected, including the Valley of the Giants in the Counsel River area. All members have seen these majestic trees towering out of picture and as stunning as anything you would see in California.What did the Labor government want in Tasmania? The Labor government wanted those woodchipped as well. I am no fool when it comes to the reality that that government has had the influence in the national caucus to use a device like this to get around the Tasmanian RFA coming under the same scrutiny as the Western Australian or the New South Wales RFAs. To use a time device is precious, to say the least. That will not stand up in court. I will agree with Senator Troeth on that. No independent tribunal would say that there is any reasonable argument for having parliamentary scrutiny of all the RFAs in Australia except the Tasmanian, East Gippsland and Central Highlands of Victoria RFAs. What nonsense! I will not expand on that, because the case is absurd. We are left with the next best option of going with the Labor agreement.I think it does raise some questions. It could be argued that it treats some states differently from others. I do not know who is going to challenge on it or what the basis of standing for a challenge would be, but it does raise the spectre of one state being treated differently from another or one region being treated differently from another. One would have to go and read the Constitution, particularly section 99, carefully to feel absolutely sure that we are not being discourteous to that particular provision in the way Labor has brought this amendment forward. Senator Greig has, amongst other things, fixed up the concern about that. His amendment would make sure we give equal treatment to all the regions and all the states. As a stickler for the Constitution as it stands, until it is altered, I would want to support him on that. I will be supporting this important amendment to the amendment, brought forward by the Democrats.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the Democrat amendment to opposition amendment No. R4 be agreed to.21:34:00The 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.47Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Minchin, N. H.O'Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendments R4 and 6 on sheet 1290 revised 2 be agreed to. Would senators please resume their seats; I would like to be able to see through some of the people on the floor so I can give the call to Senator Brown.21:38:007982Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—There are a few people I can see through here on occasions, Madam Chairman, but I know what the trouble is and I thank you very much for clearing the way. We now go back to the Labor amendment and I ask this simple question of a government that may not want the New South Wales regional forest agreements brought before this place for scrutiny: is it true that, under the regional forest agree ment in south-east New South Wales, 10,000 hectares of breeding koala habitat is up to be logged? If that is bolted down in the regional forest agreement, let Senator Troeth tell the chamber and let us hear why it is that this chamber should not debate that matter. Here we have the nation's emblem; here we have the disgusting outcome in south-east New South Wales where logging of some form—I will allow the government spokesperson to describe it—is going to occur in 10,000 hectares of breeding koala habitat near Bermagui. Could anybody think that that matter ought not be discussed in this place?If we do not take that as a matter for discussion, we have the provisions coming down the line—we will be debating those tomorrow—for compensation for the big woodchip players, including Harris Daishowa, the wholly Japanese owned company at the Eden woodchip mill, which, by the way, in breach of Premier Bob Carr's assurance before the last election in New South Wales, is going to continue to woodchip after the year 2000, with I think 130,000-plus tonnes per annum coming out of New South Wales forests. Isn't it right and proper that this chamber be able to look at that commitment made to the people of New South Wales which is breached by the regional forest agreement? I think it is. After all, the Prime Minister is to put his signature to this agreement. Isn't it fair that we be able to look at whether the Prime Minister has upheld his promise to ecologically sustainable logging, which we now find is invading koala habitat?There is no limit to the elasticity of the abuse of that term, and there ought to be no limit to the way in which the parliament can scrutinise an outcome which promises one thing and not only fails to deliver but also gives the exact opposite, which is devastation of the habitat of koalas, for goodness sake. Even if you do not see that as the main game in these regional forest agreements, surely you would think that the outcomes of the spending of $200 million ought to be a matter for review by this chamber, let alone the fact that we have just knocked Tasmania, East Gippsland and the central highlands of Victoria out of the prospect.Labor's second amendment proposes that the regional forest agreement provide for structural adjustment packages, including relocation and retraining for affected workers and their families. Ought we not be agreeing with that? After all, Senator Troeth herself says on behalf of the government that this is about jobs. Patently it is not, because in Tasmania, for one, 400 jobs have been lost, not gained, since the Prime Minister put his signature on the document, having spent tens of millions of dollars which is going into the profit lines of the big woodchip companies. I agree with Senator Troeth to some degree that it is a bit vague, but at least it is an effort to find some succour and reparation for the very people the woodchip corporations put out of work. There are 20,000 people lost out of the industry since those corporations first arrived here and set up their mills in 1969. I think this is the first time, by the way, in parliamentary history anywhere in this country that either of the big parties has moved to help in some way assuage the damage done to people kicked out of an industry which they have supported through thick and thin. More will be kicked out in their thousands, regardless of whether or not regional forest agreements come before this parliament and regardless of how well they are set up.There is massive compensation in here for the woodchip corporations but nothing for the workers. What a sham. What an abuse of those workers. I have spoken to some of the union representatives who picket conservationists. I have also spoken to owners of boutiques and abusive sportspeople who have a difference of opinion with conservationists. I have said, `Hey, where is your compensation package in these regional forest agreements?' They had no answer to it. What they are doing in effect is fighting for million dollar backup packages for the big corporations and nothing for the workers. But here at least is an effort in that direction by the Labor Party.I am not sure, by the way, who should fund these structural adjustment packages. In my book, the industry should do it, much the same as I believe the mining industry in general should fund, at the end of the day, those people who have given it good service. I do not think there should be any further impost on the public purse, but maybe Senator Forshaw could clear the air on that one. Either way, however, I agree with that particular amendment; I think it is absolutely essential.I will be moving later to remove this unseemly largesse to the big woodchip corporations. But, if we are going to give backup insurance to anybody, surely it has to be to the workers—those very people in regional Australia whose interests Senator Troeth says she is defending. I am not quite sure why the two amendments have been moved together but I support them. It is absolutely essential that the regional forest agreements do get scrutiny before the parliament.We had a group of lobbyists from north-east New South Wales visit this place a bit over a week ago. Many members would have heard from them. They are extremely anxious about the outcome of the regional forest agreement up there. They have seen the pattern around the rest of the country, they believe that their interests in terms of protecting forests are being secretly undermined, and they absolutely want parliament to be able to review the outcome. As far as the environment is concerned, I agree with them but I add—as Labor does here—that as far as the workers are concerned we should be able to review it.I will tell you one thing we cannot review, and that is the money that is going to be handed to the woodchip corporations. If we do not support this, when the big compensation payouts come because some future minister for the environment in Canberra wants to protect a koala habitat, are we going to be able to review that situation? Are we going to be able to say, `A better option is to review the regional forest agreement and not have the people of New South Wales—or of Australia—paying hundreds of millions of dollars to protect trees that do not need protecting; they can stand up perfectly well themselves'? Of course, we should be saying to corporations, `Stay out of that habitat.'Where in all of this are the reparations to the industries which lose out: the job-rich tourism industries based on things like koala habitats and forest scenery? There is no reference to them at all; there is no opportunity for loss reparation in here at all. That is another reason why we should be scrutinising these agreements to fix them up. They are full of holes; they are unfair; they are weighted to the big end of town against regional and rural Australia; to industries which are downsizing against industries which are job rich; and they are absolutely weighted against the environment.When you see—as I do from my perspective—the horrendous situations that these put the interests of the people of Australia in, you have to demand that parliament scrutinise these arrangements. How dare the Howard government, let alone state governments, sign agreements for the use of the nation's resources and taxpayers' millions and say, `But we don't want parliament to scrutinise them.' That is unconscionable.Progress reported.Adjournment798410000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Order! It being 9.50 p.m, I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.798421:50:007984Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Much has been said in the last week or so about young people, given the arrangement reached on entrenching junior wage rates. Indeed, the coalition has done much to put into place a comprehensive range of measures to provide young people, including indigenous Australians, with increased access to education and training and increased opportunities to find employment. The coalition has successfully introduced the Work for the Dole scheme, based on the principle of mutual obligation. This scheme is conclusively showing that it can reunite unemployed young Australians with their communities and build the self-esteem of the young, unemployed participants.With the commitment of over $340 million over four years for its Work for the Dole program, the coalition has demonstrated that it really means what it says with this commitment. However, the government alone cannot solve youth unemployment. Community groups, individuals and the youths themselves have a fundamental role to play.I am pleased to report to the Senate that such a community initiative to stem youth unemployment is occurring within Wyong Shire. While recently on a fact-finding mission visiting rural and regional communities in my home state of New South Wales, it was my pleasure to meet with members of Wyong Shire Council to discuss issues facing the youth of the Central Coast, in particular youth unemployment. My visit to the area was the culmination of a two-week visit to community and industry groups in a number of regional centres and the Central Coast. I was invited to the Central Coast by my colleague Jim Lloyd, the member for Robertson, and I was specifically invited to visit Wyong Council, in the neighbouring electorate of Dobell, by the Mayor of Wyong, Cliff Russell.Of particular interest was an innovative youth project aimed at targeting youth unemployment and other youth issues. Whilst youth unemployment in the Wyong-Gosford region is below the national and state averages, it is still an unacceptably high 20 per cent. It is of concern that the Wyong region needs 2,000 new jobs a year just to meet the current demands of the population. Population growth in the region is 3.5 to four per cent. Currently, 33 per cent of the population have to commute to Sydney for employment and the area is crying out for an injection of industry that will bring local jobs. It certainly gives new meaning to the term `dormitory suburb'.The Wyong Shire Council has seen youth unemployment as a problem for the region for an extended period, with youth rates, as I said, hovering around the 20 per cent mark. In May 1997, the council implemented a community plan that set forth the aspirations of the Wyong community to help the youth of the region find employment and directions for its implementation. One of the key objectives of the document was to provide young people with opportunities to put forward their own ideas and to generate their own solutions. After extensive community consultation, the council concluded that the youth of the Wyong district needed better facilities to accommodate their need in terms of youth specific health services, support services, and recreation and entertainment facilities.In keeping with this objective, in December 1997 the council purchased a site at Hely Street, Wyong for a purpose-built youth facility. In April 1998 the Wyong council established a joint venture project with the Salvation Army to establish and operate the youth service on the Hely Street site. High unemployment, family breakdown and a lack of educational opportunities on the Central Coast led the Salvation Army to join the project which has become known as the Youth 2000 project.The project will provide invaluable services for the region, including employment related courses to enhance numeracy, literacy, self-esteem and conflict resolution; facilities to job match youth with hopeful employers; chaplaincy and counselling; support for pregnant teenage girls and young mothers; and counselling for drug, alcohol and other addictions. The centre will also provide music and recording facilities, a skate park, basketball courts, a performing arts area and a youth cafe.What is most unique about this project is the level of youth inclusion, from the initial design phase that included representatives from high schools across the shire to the appointment of six youth representatives to the permanent advisory board in charge of the project. Those involved have shown great commitment to the project, meeting out of school hours and rising to the challenge of responsibility that involvement with such a project entails. It was rewarding to see local youth playing such an active part in projects that will play a role in helping them to realise their potential.What is also significant is that the development of the site has been partly constructed by Work for the Dole participants who work side by side with skilled labour hired by the Salvation Army. The coalition's Work for the Dole scheme aims to increase participants' work ethic and restore their links with the community, which certainly can help when seeking work. The Work for the Dole participants are not only gaining skills such as carpentry, concreting and bricklaying but are helping to contribute to facilities that will help them and other youth in the Wyong district in the future. The coalition's initiative in Work for the Dole allows community groups, local councils and other non-profit organisations to be involved in developing projects and running them. This is a fine example of the benefits of the Work for the Dole scheme, both for the participants and for the community in which they reside. Ruth Moncrieff, the managing director of the program, said:After only one month, the participants were starting to regain their self-esteem and self worth. They are also making friends and learning new skills and have a reason to get out of bed two days a week.What made this particular project stick in my mind is the positive way that the Wyong council and other groups and individuals in the community are attempting to address the problems in their regions. This is really assistance from the bottom up rather than the top down. In particular, I was impressed with how the council is seeking to redress what is an unacceptably high rate of youth unemployment in the Gosford-Wyong region, with all its attendant problems.The project will give youth skills and self-esteem to bring about a lowering of youth unemployment rates in the region and, consequently, lower youth suicide rates—also a problem—and drug dependency within younger sections of the Central Coast community. The Youth 2000 project also has the potential to be a fantastic model for other similar projects across the country. Prior to completion, the project has already won an award at the International City/County Management Association awards in Washington. Wyong council won the award for the best program that enhances the quality of life for disadvantaged youth.It was indeed a pleasure for me to see not only such an innovative project but one that has involved so many sections of the Wyong community. From local companies and com munity groups to schools and individuals, support across the community has been both significant and outstanding. Community response has been generous and heartfelt, with donations coming from the state government, BBC Hardware, Mitre 10, local registered clubs, the Wyong Rotary Club, local schools and, of course, the Wyong Shire Council. Of the $1 million needed to fund construction of the project, $750,000 has already been raised and donated through community support. Potentially this model youth project could be developed around the country to involve the community in youth programs. The centre encourages visitors and is an excellent example of what a committed community can do to work in tandem with government initiatives to provide long-term solutions. It gives young people not only job skills but a sense of purpose so that they really are fit for life.798621:59:007986O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—In question time in the House of Representatives last Thursday and in the Senate last week a question was asked of the government about the future of the Australian dairy industry. In the House of Representatives, the shadow minister for agriculture, Gavan O'Connor, asked the minister, Mr Truss, what the government was doing to assist this multibillion dollar export industry to adjust to further deregulation, that deregulation being the end of the domestic market support arrangements and the removal of the remaining statutory controls on the price and supply of Victorian liquid milk.Mr O'Connor wanted to know why the government was taking so long to respond to a plan to help 13,500 farmers through what will clearly be a very difficult period of adjustment. The answer given by Mr Truss was most informative. However, if you are a dairy farmer, it was also very disturbing. Mr Truss said:The dairy industry is responding to that decision.He meant the decision by the Victorian government to deregulate the Victorian system completely. He also said:The government will naturally deal with that package when it is put to us. Those dairy farmers who have spent many months tramping around the corridors of this building putting their plan before this government generally, and Mr Truss and his office in particular, will be very disturbed to find that their efforts have been in vain.At about the same time, Senator Alston in this place was on his feet dealing with the same matter. We obviously had Mr Truss not working off his brief and getting it wrong while Senator Alston, who eventually found his brief, was working off Mr Truss's brief and, in some respects, getting it right. While the minister was telling the other place that when the industry put forward a plan the government would look at it, Senator Alston in this place was saying:The industry has put forward a plan.We also had the minister calling on the Labor Party to make a constructive contribution. We then had Senator Alston reminding us that it was important to note there was a Senate inquiry currently under way into the dairy industry. He said:It will report on 30 September, and there 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.Considering that the inquiry was initiated by the Labor Party, that sounds like a constructive contribution to me. In fact, the terms of reference for the inquiry were not only proposed by me on behalf of the Labor Party; they were endorsed by the office of the then minister, Mr Vaile. This matter was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee because the former minister, Mr Anderson, and Mr Vaile had failed to do their job. They had failed the dairy industry.The end of regulation in Victoria and the DNS on 1 July next year will have a dramatic impact on the industry and those regional economies throughout Australia that rely on it. The government has been aware of both these events and their impact for some considerable time. It is all very well for the minister, Mr Truss, to say that the industry has had fair warning. That criticism can be more easily directed at the government itself. The current national arrangements, along with the sunset clause, have been in place since 1992. The intention of the Victorian government about the future of regulation in that state has also been obvious.The impact of further deregulation on the Australian dairy industry was also item 1A on the agenda of the meeting of Commonwealth and state agriculture ministers in Adelaide on 5 March. At that meeting, all ministers agreed that the time left to address the major issues was `critical'. Note that that was on 5 March. The ministers also noted advice from the Australian Dairy Industry Council on the matter. The ministers noted `the significant adjustment and commercial pressures which the industry needs to deal with'. Again, the ministers acknowledged that the time available to address major issues was critical.The ministers also noted advice from Mr Vaile that as soon as a firm proposal was provided by the industry he would take it up with the federal government. Mr Vaile had that plan on his desk on 20 April this year. He and his office had detailed discussions with the Australian Dairy Industry Council well before then. On 5 March, the minister representing dairy farmers in the Howard government knew, firstly, that time was running out to find the most effective way to manage the radical change facing 13,500 farmers that make up an industry which generates $2 billion per year in export earnings. Secondly, he had advice from the industry on the impact of deregulation. Thirdly, he knew the significant adjustment and commercial pressures that had to be dealt with. Fourthly, he knew that the time available—that is, at 5 March—to deal with the significant adjustment and commercial pressures was critical. Fifthly, he gave a commitment to his fellow ministers that he would move quickly once the industry had presented a plan. The government has had that industry plan before it for 132 days.Mr Truss and, before him, Mr Vaile have a whole department of experienced and competent officers at the end of a telephone. They could be in the minister's office within minutes. Both have had at their disposal the resources to undertake a proper process of consultation with Australian dairy farmers, but both have failed to activate those resources. Both have had at their disposal the resources to assess the plan presented by Mr Pat Rowley on behalf of the Australian Dairy Industry Council or look at other options, such as the one offered by the concerned dairy farmers group, but we have heard nothing.Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, Mr John Anderson, has at his disposal a department that has some considerable expertise in regional adjustment. But we have seen nothing from him either. Despite the best efforts of people like Pat Rowley and the representatives of the concerned farmers group, who have been genuine in their efforts to find a way through this policy dilemma, successive ministers have failed to give the matter the attention it deserves. It is the Senate committee, not the minister, that has provided a means by which the Australian Dairy Industry Council plan could be tested. We are scheduled to complete our hearings early next month. It has been the Senate committee, again, and not the minister, that has sought out alternative plans. It has been the same Senate committee, not the minister, that has sought to identify the regional impacts of further deregulation of the dairy industry.This government has failed to take the initiative in finding a way through the consequences of the Kennett government's decision to deregulate its industry, and therefore, by default, deregulation in other states. Yet again the National Party has failed to take the initiative in the interests of people living in the bush. Yet again it has chosen, belatedly and reluctantly, to react to a problem. Yet again, as it did in a response to the growing problem of Ovine Johne's disease and just as it did in the crisis facing the wool industry, the National Party has failed.Although Mr Truss is the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the industry is really dependent on Mr Anderson, as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party, to win cabinet room support for an acceptable package. That means that Mr Anderson must win the day against the cabinet dries, led by the Treasurer, Mr Costello. That will be the true test for Mr Anderson; it will determine whether he is fit to lead the National Party. We will see whether he really is a Pitt Street farmer or a champion of the bush.798822:08:007988Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise this evening to discuss the issue of encryption technologies. I am conscious of the fact that, in this short amount of time, I could not possibly do justice to the breadth and depth of encryption technology, so instead I will concentrate on the issue of policy, in particular focusing on the 1996 review of policy relating to encryption technologies and the final report of that review, which is commonly known as the Walsh report.During 1996 the Secretary to the Attorney-General's department invited Gerard Walsh, a former Deputy Director of ASIO, to review the policy relating to encryption technologies and to offer a view as to whether legislative or other actions were indicated in the face of the information and communications revolution. In view of limited resources, the review did not invite written submissions or conduct public hearings but instead consulted with a representative sample of interested parties. A report was prepared by Gerard Walsh, dated 10 October 1996, and it was prepared and printed by the Australian Government Publishing Service. Deposit copies were sent to libraries and the report was listed for sale by the AGPS in January 1997, but the report was never made available for sale. It was withdrawn from the AGPS, and from their sales lists around the country, three weeks after its appearance there, apparently on the instructions of either the Attorney-General himself or the Attorney-General's Department.There is no doubt that this report was written with the intention that it would be publicly available. Indeed, the foreword in the printed version of the report gave a mailing address and a fax number, as well as an email address, to which public comments could be forwarded. It is also noted that the closing date for public comments was to be 16 February 1997. These facts would seem to indicate that there was an intention to release the report publicly.In March 1997 Mr Greg Taylor applied for a copy of the report under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Taylor is a member of Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit organisation which was formed to protect and promote the civil rights of Internet users. His initial request was refused on the basis that disclosure would cause damage to the security of the Commonwealth and prejudice law enforcement. Mr Taylor asked for a review of the decision, and he was sent a copy of the document, with about 40 deletions for the national security and law enforcement reasons I have already mentioned.In January of this year another member of Electronic Frontiers Australia discovered a copy of the full uncensored report sitting in a library in Tasmania. The full report was subsequently released via the Internet. In February of this year a member of my staff borrowed an uncensored copy of the report from the deposit collection of the National Library of Australia. Also in February a letter was sent to a number of library deposit administrators by AusInfo, requesting the return of the copies of this report.Why was the report withdrawn? Why are we discussing it now? There is no doubt that the report cuts very close to the bone, but probably with good reason. The availability and the use of encryption is intricately connected with communication privacy, transactional privacy and civil liberties generally. The report was intended to be a comprehensive review of the policies relating to encryption technologies, and it is indeed quite comprehensive. It includes a full range of recommendations, findings and conclusions which should be of vital importance to any discussion of information technology and law enforcement policy. Indeed, legislation was introduced earlier this year by the Attorney-General to implement some of the recommendations of the report. The legislation takes the form of a series of amendments to the ASIO enabling legislation. Of course, I will have a lot more to say about that at the second reading stage of that legislation, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that the expansion of ASIO powers should take place only after consultation on the recommendations of the Walsh report.Encryption is a central requirement of communications and electronic commerce via networks such as the Internet. The communications and transactional privacy of users, and thus their confidence, is directly related to the availability of secure communication channels. Encryption is able to provide those secure communication channels, but the Australian government seems to have followed the United States along a path of highlighting the mythical dangers of readily available encryption rather than affirming the right of all Australians to private and secure communications and transactions.As I said during the Internet censorship debate, any response to this type of speech is likely to include the standard refrains about the so-called `Four Horsepeople of the Infopocalypse'. These are paedophiles, organised criminals, drug traffickers and terrorists. With great respect to those people who list these standard enemies, the horses have bolted. We know that this group of miscreants have access to high-level encryption technology; indeed, one portion of the report which was removed from the version released under the FOI was a paragraph which stated:Strong encryption, which cannot be defeated by law enforcement and national security agencies, is already available commercially or in the public domain.With great respect to those people who made those deletions for the FOI request, this is not a secret, and certainly not a secret deserving of protection from release under the FOI provisions.Interestingly, another excised paragraph of the report refers to a `range of encryption technologies, ranging from relatively unsophisticated through to DES'. This reference to DES as the pinnacle of available technology is now seriously outdated. Indeed, it was probably outdated at the time of writing. Earlier this year a DES-encrypted message was cracked by amateurs in less than 24 hours using brute force technologies. This would seem to indicate that DES is being broken far more rapidly by specialist agencies such as the Defence Signals Directorate, and yet DES encryption forms the basis of the security systems used by most banks and government agencies. In contrast, freely available encryption software, such as PGP—or pretty good privacy—provides orders of magnitude more security and has the advantage of using public-key techniques, which make the use of encryption in a communications environment significantly simpler.Restrictions on the use of these technologies are simply not enforceable. An earlier policy suggestion—popular both in Australia and the United States—would have encouraged us all to use easily cracked encryption, with the obvious outcome that anybody using stronger encryption was doing so to cover up some illegal purpose. This, of course, is an outrageous suggestion. What is needed in any discussion of policy in this field is a realisation by governments that private communications are a right rather than a privilege. Currently there seems to be a view that the privilege of private communication should be extended only to law enforcement, surveillance and military agencies. Of course, that view is quite offensive. Australians deserve the highest level of protection for their personal and business communications, including the use of encryption where appropriate.As mentioned earlier, encryption is also an essential component of electronic commerce systems. There is still a widespread lack of confidence among Internet users about the reliability and safety of electronic transactions. The low-level encryption available in Internet browsers exported from the United States provides a very flimsy guarantee of transactional security and privacy. Fortunately, Australians are world leaders in providing high-level encryption products for electronic commerce. In another bizarre twist of policy, it seems that these products cannot be exported from Australia even though they can be imported.One of the other supposedly controversial paragraphs in the Walsh report questions the efficacy of export controls as a defensive strategy when no import controls exist. We know that products frequently evade the export controls of the United States or are available from unrestricted European sources. I would certainly not advocate the imposition of import controls but would instead argue for perhaps a more intelligent response. I am encouraged by some of the initiatives from the United States to legalise the sale and use of encryption. The proposals in the original Security and Freedom through Encryption—or SAFE—Bill seek to address the possibility of criminal use of encryption by making use in the furtherance of a criminal act an independent offence.I call on the Attorney-General now to release the Walsh report in its entirety and to engage in a debate about the availability and use of encryption which would recognise the legitimate rights and liberties of Australians. Hopefully, we can do this without a single mention of the usual and probably illusory suspects.799022:18:007990Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—I would like to speak tonight on the plight of former employees of the Selwyn Mine in Queensland, which is situated approximately 280 kilometres south of Mount Isa. Having spent many years negotiating agreements on behalf of the Selwyn employees and having had the opportunity on a number of occasions to visit the site and deal with a number of industrial relations matters, I feel very close to the problems that confront employees at present, particularly the grief that they are currently experiencing.Selwyn Mine, to put it in perspective, is a gold and copper mine owned by Arimco Mining that previously employed some 118 workers. On 26 March the Australian Workers Union was advised that all employees were terminated forthwith. At the date of the closure the workers were owed something in the order of $6 million in accumulated entitlements. Put bluntly, it averaged about $24,000 for each worker. Six months later, these workers have not received one cent of their entitlements. Many of the workers are struggling financially, trying to pay mortgages and supporting their families in the hope that they will soon receive their money. Unfortunately, a solution does not seem to be likely in the near future. It certainly has not materialised.The mine received something in the order of $4.5 million from the sale of the final shipment of copper concentrate. That was realised in April and is known, as I understand it, as a floating asset. Rather than paying the money to the employees, the receiver and managers chose to use it to maintain the mine on a care and maintenance basis and to comply with various mine regulations. This was apparently done in the hope of receiving a larger sum upon the eventual sale of the mine.The receivers have failed to respond to the AWU's request to pass this money on to the former employees, claiming that they are seeking legal advice—which was sought in about July and has still not materialised. It appears that the AWU was the only party interested in ensuring that workers received their just entitlements. I have been informed that the union has taken up the fight for these workers. The local organiser from Mount Isa, Hag Harrison, and the local organiser from Townsville, Bill Tew, have been pressuring and pursuing the company, or the voluntary administrators, and this will continue until employees receive their entitlements. A profitable sale of the mine may eventuate. However, workers should not have to risk part of their entitlements in the hope of receiving their full payment.The government has an obligation to ensure that all workers receive what they are owed when an enterprise fails to pay the workers the money they are entitled to, especially when the company has gone into voluntary administration and, from voluntary administration, the receivers and managers have then used, as I understand it, a floating asset to continue the mine rather than distribute the money to employees who have been waiting for some time. On that basis, it becomes an absolute travesty of justice that workers are still waiting for their money some six months after the mine's closure when there was money available at the time.The workers were apparently never asked if they wanted their entitlements reinvested in the mine, and it appears that the receivers are not obliged to ask for their permission. There seems to be a black hole in the legislation that provides for the receivers and managers to be able to use that entitlement to maintain the mine on a care basis until such time as the mine may be sold. The current legislation is clearly inadequate and offers minimal protection to workers in this predicament. I call on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to put in place legislative measures to ensure that these workers are paid in full. It is simply not good enough for the receivers to spend half a year seeking legal advice and hoping to sell the mine when workers and their families are still waiting for these entitlements.Job entitlement protection legislation is desperately needed to ensure that workers are not forced to gamble part of their entitlement money in order to realise their total benefits. Workers should definitely not have to risk part of their entitlements to ensure that banks or creditors receive their share of the investment. Unless the sale of the Arimco mine yields a profit of—if my arithmetic is correct—about $15 million, workers will lose out again. The way it works is that the first $4.5 million is returned to the workers—which is the floating charge or as a consequence of the sale of the copper concentrate in assets—and the bank, Rothschilds, as I understand, is owed a further $9 million.It is estimated that only after the banks receive their money will the rest of the workers' entitlements—the balance from the $4.5 million right up to the $6 million—be able to be accessed by the employees. This may or may not end up being the case; that is, the sale. But, regardless, it is not acceptable to take this sort of risk with other people's hard-earned money.Workers deserve certainty. The government owes it to all working people to introduce job entitlement protection legislation to ensure that workers are paid what they are owed. I am aware of the discussion paper released recently by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business on employee entitlements. I would seek that that legislation be drafted sooner rather than later, given that a considerable number of workers have already found themselves in this situation this year.While I encourage any move to introduce measures protecting employee entitlements, the workers from the Selwyn Mine would not be protected from any future legislation. The government therefore needs to show some leadership and intervene to ensure that the workers are paid what they are owed.The situation goes somewhat further, in that it does not confine itself to job protection entitlement legislation where a company may go into voluntary administration, receivers and managers are appointed and as a consequence, or due to the failure of the receivers and managers to resurrect the company, it may then go into liquidation. We have a unique situation where a floating charge has been used to continue the operation on a care and maintenance basis, without consultation—a discretionary decision, as I understand it, by the receivers and managers—which in effect takes away a certain $4.5 million that could have been used to pay out the employees' entitlements. As a consequence, they have had to wait a significant amount of time, and only if the mine is sold are they likely to receive a return.An unfortunate situation could eventuate where the mine is sold, but only after some time; but what if the mine is not sold and the employees are left in the lurch for a far longer period? The receivers and managers under the voluntary administration scheme appear to have failed the workers by using that money for care and maintenance rather than to provide at least some relief to the employees. If all goes well, the mine may return an investment and be sold and the employees will receive their just entitlements. However, it is not a matter that should be left to the discretion of the voluntary administrator. Legislation should clearly provide an appropriate outcome, and those sorts of decisions should be made in consultation with the people who are likely to be affected—in this case the Selwyn Mine employees.799222:26:007992Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I think it is appropriate at this time to welcome Senator Ludwig and to congratulate him on his maiden speech in this place.It probably would have been more helpful to the workers of Australia if a plea such as the one made by the honourable senator opposite had been made 13 or 15 years ago in this place. He would know, from being a union organiser during the term of the Hawke and Keating governments—but particularly under Mr Keating's stewardship of the economy as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister—that those governments put the livelihoods of something like a million households across Australia in jeopardy. A million people were unemployed in 1992-93. A million households were without a breadwinner. Tens of thousands of businesses were sent to the wall by interest rates that peaked at over 30 per cent for businesses. It was a deliberate decision of those governments—those economic vandals.I have not searched the records here, but I did not see that the honourable senator in his previous life as a union organiser pleaded for that government to protect the hundreds of thousands of workers who lost their daily bread, who lost their livelihood, who lost any chance of putting a roof over the heads of their children, and who could rely only on the unemployment benefits that were paid out by the Commonwealth government. Those people were in power for 13 years, and of the 13 years they ran budget deficits in 10 of them. The average deficit was $10 billion.They drove government debt to historic high levels, and they drove interest rates up as a matter of choice and policy around the cabinet table, which drove tens of thousands of Australian businesses to the wall. And what did they do about workers' entitlements during those 13 years? Not a damn thing. And you have the gross hypocrisy as a member of the trade union movement to come into this place and lecture this government, which has done more about protecting workers' rights, more about protecting workers' entitlements than any Labor government in the past 13 years.Senator Mark Bishop interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—This opposition is an absolute and total disgrace, and for a former member of the Australian Workers Union to come in here and totally forget the absolute and abject—Senator Mark Bishop interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bishop! Senator Campbell has the call and I expect him to be heard in silence.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—And you hear these union officials opposite squealing so loudly because they are so embarrassed by the inaction of the previous Labor government which destroyed the Australian economy.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—You are a disgraceful hypocrite!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Bishop, please withdraw your unparliamentary language.2L6BISHOPSenator Mark Bishop—I withdraw.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—They are screaming and yelling, and breaching standing orders, because they are so embarrassed by the inaction of that government. The only action that was taken by that government that had an impact on workers' lives was to drive interest rates up past 30 per cent for businesses. If you read John Edwards's excellent biography of former Prime Minister Keating, you would see it says that Mr Keating knew, when he was Treasurer, that if you drive interest rates up past double digits then you put a lot of pressure on businesses. Where were the unions when tens of thousands of businesses—not a mine here and a mine there—were driven to the wall? Where were the unions when all of those workers—over one million of them in the end, one million breadwinners—had to come home and say, `Sorry, I've just lost my job'? Mr Keating—and I am sure Senator Bishop and Senator Ludwig would know this—made a policy decision to drive those businesses out of business and to drive those people home to their kids to say, `Sorry, no more income for the time being.' I get very angry when Labor senators come in here and say, `What about these workers?' What about those million workers during the recession, when Mr Keating and people like Senator Cook, the then employment minister, and Mr Beazley, the finance minister, sat around that cabinet table and made a deliberate decision to drive interest rates up above 30 per cent and drive people out of business? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.They have not changed their spots. They seek to be the government in this place again. They had the audacity to put their name up on the ballot paper at the last federal election. They want to be the government again. What is their policy? It is more government spending, higher taxes and, we presume, higher debt and higher interest rates again. The people of middle Australia will not forget going out to their letterboxes, collecting the envelope and dreading to see the bank's insignia on the front of the envelope because they knew what was inside it. It said, `Dear Mr and Mrs Australia, interest rates have gone up again,' because you had Mr Beazley and Mr Keating and Senator Cook and the others saying, `Let's keep borrowing and spending up. Let's spend future young Australians' money before they have a chance to vote about it and drive those interest rates up.' That is what these people opposite did.Now they come in here and say, `What are you doing about it?' The record shows that this government has done more about workers' entitlements than what was done in 13 years of Labor government. They had the opportunity. I was in the Senate when they brought forward—Senator Mark Bishop interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bishop!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—They yell and squeal opposite because deep in their hearts they know that they were members of a party that, less than eight years ago, had before this chamber amendments to the Corporations Law to do exactly what Senator Ludwig is talking about, which is to put workers higher up the line of entitlements when a company goes into receivership or liquidation. What did the previous Labor government do? Nothing. They did not do what you said. They had 13 years to do it. They had 13 years to put in place workers' entitlements legislation. Go and speak to your mate Greg Combet.I met Greg Combet on the front lawn outside this place. I said, `Greg, can you tell us why the Labor Party didn't do this?' He said, `I don't know.' He was very angry about it. I am sure that if Senator Ludwig and Senator Bishop go and talk to Mr Combet in a quiet room where they promise not to say what each other says, Greg Combet will tell you that the Labor Party had the opportunity to do it. A report was done, and what did they do about it? Nothing. No wonder Mr Combet thought the previous government was hopeless. Let us hope that you can face up to the total lack of action.They have not changed their spots. Here they are talking about mining companies. What did they do in 1993 on native title legislation? They brought in a piece of legislation that virtually obliterated exploration in Australia. It obliterated anything but brown fields exploration. It destroyed it. Tomorrow they will have a chance to vote on a disallowance motion which will either place mining and exploration in the Northern Territory at risk or allow it to go ahead. We saw how Senator Bishop from Western Australia voted on the native title legislation. He sold down his own state. We have not had a chance to see how Senator Ludwig will vote on native title issues. That is where we will see how serious they are about supporting the rights of workers in Australia to continue the efforts of a great Australian industry: mining and exploration.Do you want to blanket Australia with a legislative regime that makes it virtually impossible to get an exploration project going, or do you want to allow the states and territories to get on with implementing regimes that will allow the great mining provinces of Queensland and Western Australia to go on being explored and to go on creating wealth for all Australians, particularly for those families who leave the capital cities and go to the regional areas, put up with tough condi tions and work in those great mining provinces to explore and create future wealth creation opportunities? Or do you want to ensure that Mr Keating's native title law smothers Queensland and Western Australia? We will see how these gentlemen opposite vote tomorrow on native title issues. We will watch them very closely and we will see whether the words we heard tonight were not abject and total hypocrisy.Senate adjourned at 10.36 p.m.Documents79947994The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Orders (Amendment No. 1) 1999.Financial Management and Accountability Act—Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Orders (Amendment No. 3) 1999.Maritime College Act—Statute No.— 10—Interpretation (Amendment) Statute 1999. 11—Election of Staff Members of Council (Amendment) Statute 1999.Migration Act— Direction under section 499—Direction—Removal of Immigration Rights s.16—No. 18. Certificates under section 502, dated 17 August 1999 [2].7994The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statements of compliance—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio.Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.Environment and Heritage portfolio.Industry, Science and Resources portfolio.International Air Services Commission (IASC).Public Service and Merit Protection Commission.Treasury portfolio.Answers to Questions on Notice7995The following answers to questions were circulated:7995(Question No. 1089)10897995Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) (a) At the time that the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) consulted the department, and when the Assistant Treasurer approved Sun Healthcare's entry into Australia in August 1997, was the Minister advised or did he ask whether Sun Healthcare was purchasing, or intended to purchase, facilities such as pathology laboratories, nursing homes and aged care facilities which are licensed by Federal authorities; and (b) what action did the Minister take.(2) (a) Was the Minister advised at this time about the allegations of staffing problems and substandard care in Sun Healthcare's facilities on the one hand, and the contrasting claims by the Chairman on the other hand that there was `plenty of fat in the system' which he would cut; (b) was the Minister concerned by the Chairman's attitude to government surveillance, that government should `butt out'; and (c) what steps did the Minister take at a federal level to resolve this issue in the interest of Australian citizens.(3) With light being shed on the substandard care in American corporate nursing homes, particularly Sun Healthcare's facilities, what steps does the Minister plan to take to protect Australia's health system from similar practices by Sun Healthcare or even from Australian corporations to ensure the priority is care over profit.(4) What steps can the Minister take to assist and support state health departments faced with the task of assessing the probity of wealthy, FIRB-approved multinationals.7995Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) No.(b) Not applicable, see (a).(2) (a) No.(b) No applicable, see (a),(c) As indicated in (1) (a) and (b) and (2) (a) and (b) the Minister was not involved in the issue. (3) Australia's health care system contains regulatory mechanisms to ensure that appropriate standards of care are met.The issuing of a Commonwealth provider number for private health insurance purposes is contingent on the facility being licensed by the relevant State or Territory health authority. The State and Territory health authorities have sole responsibility for the licensing of private hospitals. This includes the responsibility to assess an applicant's suitability to hold such a licence.Where a hospital is to be co-located with a public hospital the Commonwealth requires that the State or Territory health authority and the owner of the facility provide the following assurances:. that people will be offered public patient treatment at the public hospital, or the option to be treated as a private patient in the public hospital;. that access to public patient services will not be adversely effected by the proposal; and. that there will not be any cost shifting to health insurance funds or privately insured patients.The power of the Commonwealth to declare a private hospital to be eligible for health insurance benefit purposes is vested in sub-section 23EA(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973.In the case of residential aged care, Approved Provider status is necessary under the Aged Care Act 1997 (the Act) for a provider of aged care to receive Commonwealth subsidies. Approved Providers have responsibilities under the Act, including responsibilities relating to the quality of care that the Approved Provider provides and those concerning the rights of care recipients. Further, a residential aged care facility must be certified to receive certain benefits under the Act, namely concessional resident supplement and the ability to charge accommodation bonds.If Sun Healthcare submits an application for Approved Provider status, it will be assessed against legislative criteria.(4) The Foreign Investment and Review Board (FIRB), as well as consulting the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, also consults with the relevant State authorities on applications for foreign investors to acquire Australian assets/businesses. This consultation allows the State Government authorities to assess the probity of foreign investors.The Department is always willing to assist State and Territory health authorities in relation to information on private hospitals.7996(Question No. 1118)11187996Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 15 June 1999:(1) How many primates are used in scientific and/or medical experimentation in Australia.(2) Does the National Health and Medical Research Council have statistics on the number of primates used in scientific and/or medical experimentation in Australia; if so, can the following statistics be provided: (a) the name of each facility which uses primates; (b) the total number of primates at each facility; (c) the common name and number of species at each facility; and (d) the address of each facility(3) How much Commonwealth funding did each of the facilities which use primates in scientific and/or medical experimentation receive in the 1998-99 financial year.7996Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) A total of 150 non-human primates are expected to be used in Australia in 1999 by researchers funded under the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants program. These non-human primates comprise marmosets, macaques and baboons.(2) Collection of statistics is a State responsibility under various animal welfare and prevention of cruelty to animals legislation. Information can be provided for grants funded under the NHMRC grants programs. This is detailed in the table below.(3) It is not possible to be specific about the total amount of Commonwealth funding received in the 1998-99 financial year by institutions involved in scientific and/or medical experimentation on non-human primates. However, in 1999 the amount of NHMRC funding for grants to Institutions with research involving non-human primates is $1.38 million, and for all NHMRC funded research at those Institutions the amount is $74.48 million, as detailed in the table below.Institutions using non-human primates [(2a) and (2d)]Non-human primates expected to be used in 1999—from NHMRC grant applications pro rated for 1999[(2b) and (2c)]NHMRC grant funding for research using non-human primates in 1999 [3]All NHMRC grant funding in 1999 [3]University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 407228 marmosets; 2 baboons; 7 macaques$228,324$12,624,854University of NSW, Randwick NSW 205213 marmosets$107,195$10,814,262University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 200618 marmosets$98,698$13,792,025Australian National University, Canberra ACT 020010 macaques$149,478$1,489,271Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton VIC 316818 marmosets; 13 macaques$446,777$14,587,297University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville VIC 305212 marmosets; 14 macaques$272,542$21,017,277Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville SA 501115 marmosets$81,226$161,0407997(Question No. 1201)12017997O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 14 July 1999:(1) Since March 1996, how many consultants have been engaged to provide advice on the use of gene technology in food production.(2) In each case: (a) what was the name of the consultant; and (b) was the consultancy the subject of a tender process; if so: (i) when was each tender called, (ii) when was each contract signed, (iii) what was the contract price for the consultancy, (iv) what was the contracted time for each consultancy, (v) what was the actual time taken to complete each consultancy, and (vi) what was the actual cost of the work; if not, why not.(3) When there was a variation between the contract price and the actual cost: (a) what was the basis of that variation; and (b) what process was followed in determining and agreeing the price variation.(4) When there was a variation between the contract duration and the actual duration of the consultancy: (a) what was the basis of that variation; and (b) what process was followed in determining and agreeing to the variation.(5) In the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years, how many departmental officers were engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production.(6) What financial provision has been made in the 1999-2000 budget for staff engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production.(7) What were the qualifications of departmental officers engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production in the 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years.7997Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) None(2) See (1) above(3) See (1) above(4) See (1) above(5) In 1997-98, 6 permanent or temporary public servants and one statutory office holder and in 1998-99, 10 permanent or temporary public servants and one statutory office holder were engaged by Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) in full or part-time work on gene technology.(6) $343,844(7) The combined qualifications of ANZFA officers engaged in work related to the use of gene technology in food production in the 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years were:Qualification1997-981998-991999-2000BSc588MSc111PhD566BA233Becon111LLB1117997(Question No. 1209)12097997O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 26 July 1999:(1) What was the value of the following export categories to China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial year; (a) livestock; (b) meat; (c) dairy; (d) seafood; (e) grains; (f) fruit and vegetables; (g) food preparations; and (h) crude animal and vegetable products. (2) What was the volume of the above exports to the above countries in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What was the dollar value per kilogram of the above exports to the above countries in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.7997Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Details of the value and volume of Australian exports of the nominated agricultural commodities to major Asian countries are set out in the attached table provided by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE). It should be noted data on grain exports do not contain any information on barley or rice. The table was pre pared by ABARE from data supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and they are unable to release these data by country of destination because of commercial-in-confidence restrictions.1. Value of selected agricultural exports to major Asian countries. a1996-971997-981998-99$M$M$MLivestock439268238Meat174220472158Dairy121312151374Seafood850861822Wheat134613441181Other grains and flour b9579101Oilseeds145227372Fruit and vegetables539501524Food preparations239236241Crude animals and10410286vegetable products2. Volume of selected agricultural exports to major Asian countries. a1996-971997-981998-99KTKTKTLivestock288168157Meat575607639Dairy536505586Seafood373736Wheat568355565577Other grains and flour b335300775Oilseeds4496631067Fruit and vegetables491455445Food preparations999792Crude animals and192222vegetable products3. Unit value of selected agricultural exports to major Asian countries. a1996-971997-981998-99$/KG$/KG$/KGLivestock1.521.591.51Meat3.033.373.38Dairy2.262.402.35Fish23.2123.5222.65Wheat0.240.240.21Other grains and flour b0.280.260.13 Oilseeds0.320.340.35Fruit and vegetables1.101.101.18Food preparations2.432.442.62Crude animals and5.474.563.97vegetable productsa The Asian countries comprise China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Brunei.b Does not include barley and rice exports. ABS does not release these data by export destination because of commercial-in-confidence restrictions.Source ABARE (based on ABS SITC data)7999(Question No. 1210)12107999O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice on, 26 July 1999:(1) What was the value and volume of fresh produce air-freighted to the following Asian countries in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years: (a) China; (b) Hong Kong; (c) Indonesia; (d) Japan; (e) Korea; (f) Malaysia; (g) the Philippines; (h) Singapore; (i) Taiwan; (j) Thailand; and (k) Brunei.(2) What was the value and volume of fresh produce sea-freighted to the above countries in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.7999Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Details of the value and volume of Australian exports of fresh produce to the nominated Asian countries sent by air and sea freight are set out in the attached table provided by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE).1. Value and volume of fresh produce air freighted to selected Asian countriesValueVolume1996-971997-981998-991996-971997-981998-998$000$000$000TonnesTonnesTonnesBrunei4228281325291319993852China364498497963900157931302587Hong Kong236237222450245868295392883026680Indonesia1430891587471324920001629Japan295771312113292938341903464231305Korea, Republic of469717282244381192262Malaysia3407321297178221272092397266Philippines432940714018137512931463Singapore836368278091707324043573535909Taiwan1135668807184389620462546096Thailand108584466550326539541246Total8381528339268184481256131232611152962. Value and volume of fresh produce sea freighted to selected Asian countriesValueVolume1996-971997-981998-991996-971997-981998-99$000$000$000TonnesTonnesTonnesBrunei13473123757613635656404726China8929410281693234651623612229326Hong Kong229090251800267740125425125482148485Indonesia184406114311985181061436567555215Japan181327221532512183452511291261862261376Korea, Republic of1937001753442787108872974470113390Malaysia287269298262282053200692220075203445Philippines293624289702342827153993146488176314Singapore229625215007237722150413146328157594Taiwan334633359382410480113047109455134851Thailand140901141382150937615455913864884Total3809287411363243530861582797155073616496068000(Question No. 1211)12118000O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 26 July 1999:(1) What was the value and volume of fresh produce air-freighted to the following European countries in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years: (a) Austria; (b) Belgium; (c) Denmark; (d) Finland; (e) France; (f) Germany; (g) Greece; (h) Ireland; (i) Italy: (j) Luxembourg; (k) the Netherlands; (l) Portugal; (m) Spain; (n) Sweden; (o) the United Kingdom; (p) Iceland; (q) Liechtenstein; (r) Norway; and (s) Switzerland.(2) What was the value and volume of fresh produce sea-freighted to the above countries in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.8000Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Details of the value and volume of Australian exports of fresh produce to the nominated European countries sent by air and sea freight are set out in the attached table provided by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics ABARE. It should be noted that in all instances the data for Belgium and Luxembourg are not separately identified and data for Switzerland includes any trade with Liechtenstein.1. Value and volume of fresh produce air freighted to selected European countriesValueVolume1996-971997-981998-991996-971997-981998-99$000$000$000TonnesTonnesTonnesAustria106815501555103115113Belgium-Luxembourg96641466618086108014841681Denmark753326283251333Finland219915111191271618France40595685110517499791247Germany706463497765635696684Greece19631727171414Ireland5131571134 Italy212720003962107127148Netherlands666786289410370410699Norway6542003Portugal2818318213823Spain961877509231413Sweden3431069415Switzerland217052026824404202418301999United Kingdom260954549246339745784Total5945367843881835494648274982. Value and volume of fresh produce sea freighted to selected European countriesValueVolume1996-971997-981998-991996-971997-981998-99$000$000$000TonnesTonnesTonnesAustria103811131781229379645Belgium-Luxembourg303424040433595158732329716345Denmark440547436634218123662038Finland9405966274564428672093France30838330943605296441257512111Germany789016828565262356903015927585Greece1465325767024826561045Ireland1701985012Italy91112176213871128356Netherlands9641119681330954351287010113Norway257616236779730152342806934088Portugal366948486369258830674183Spain122616892086113712791425Sweden1373514363280331198543545247Switzerland105461220410186357752245149United Kingdom919864676247266914041805Total168468177191193461664777343076023